see Denmark Bank offers negative interest rate — how are they making money?
The answer is simple — the bank is not making money on the loan. It is making money by originating the loan. It is not making money by collecting interest, it is paying interest in exchange for the borrower’s signature. The bank is not taking any risk because the fees it collects from investment bank make it a lucrative deal for the bank, who doesn’t care whether the loan is repaid or not.
The bank losing nothing if the principal amount of the loan is not repaid because it has already sold the loan to an investment bank securitization scheme where the parts of the loan are sold resulting in proceeds of sales of the parts far exceeding the “whole” debt.
As I learned over the weekend in trying to explain what I am doing and my basic premise to a close friend who had no knowledge of finance and law the entire scheme is so counter-intuitive that it simply makes no sense to anyone who has not studied the subject. And nobody studies it unless they have reason for doing it.
A debt is a debt and a loan is a loan. But what if it isn’t?
In the mortgage meltdown era that started 20 years ago, borrowers were effectively paid to sign loan documents that reflected receipt of money in transactions that were called “loans” by the originators, sellers and facilitators who sold the more than 450 varieties of loan products to unsophisticated consumers, many of whom had no idea that they were signing away rights to a home that had been in their family for generations.
Those borrowers did not understand that they were being paid for their signatures, their reputations and their homes — and the information needed to make informed decisions and negotiate terms was being not only withheld but concealed.
The only difference between the American scheme and the Denmark scheme is that Denmark is upfront about it: “We’ll pay you if you will please sign these loan documents.”
In a world where information must be condensed into only a few words nobody takes the time to ask why any “lender” would do that or whether such a party could or should be allowed to pretend that it is a “lender.”
And certainly nobody is getting the information that would enable them to see that the transaction, disguised as a loan, is really and mainly a scheme to generate fees and profits through trading.
And not even the economists have taken much note of how this changes the “free market” notion that self corrects aberrant behavior. No correction occurred because the behavior was not aberrant. So borrowers could be and were enticed to sign papers that were not a reflection of market forces adjusting for relative risk because one side — the origination side — had no risk.
Hence the advent of NINJA Loans. Repayment of a loan was incidental — not the point of the transaction. And that means it wasn’t really a loan. As long as that continues the entire financial system will be lopsided and the current system of predatory practices will be perpetuated — because there are neither governmental nor market forces in opposition to the investment banks.
This leaves both investors and borrowers in the silly position of being required to act as though they were — directly or indirectly — part of a loan transaction when in fact they had invested real capital and valuable property rights into a scheme in which they received either nothing or very little for their investment; and that is because neither the investors nor the borrowers actually knew and for the most part because they still don’t know the true nature of their investments and the legal rights they have for compensation for having been lured into an investment whose nature was unknown and where the parties to the transaction were both unknown and withheld.
At least in Denmark now negotiations have been opened. In order to restore “free markets” and the power of free market forces, we need to remove the impediments to the flow of free markets caused by severe asymmetry of knowledge. The borrower can now say,
“OK you are going to make a pile of money off of this deal, and you are offering 5 cents out of $11.00 in gross revenue. You can’t do the deal without me. So I want 50 cents. It’s in your interest to give me the 50 cents because that will help me pay the contractual payments in order to maintain the illusion that a single debt exists instead of hundreds of disparate parts that used to be the debt. If you don’t accept my counter offer I will find someone who will accept it. Or maybe I can find someone willing to pay me $1.00.”
Here is what is needed: Changes in the policy of enforcement as to unfair trading and dealing, securities violations, income tax violations and false reporting of assets and income. In any society the object is to protect and secure the rights and privileges of the people — not the corporate behemoths who regard the people as food.
All borrowers in all deals that are actually securitization schemes should have full disclosure regarding the fees and profits (as already currently required but not enforced under the Truth in Lending Act) so that they have their right to know the party with whom they are doing business and the ability to choose between vendors or purveyors of these securitization schemes and at least have the knowledge needed to effectively negotiate compensation. That was the whole point of TILA.
When the markets are not actually freely operating, free market forces cannot be in play. That is the point of government — to make the players act according to the rules to preserve free market flows, information and natural forces propelled by self interest.
Filed under: foreclosure |
@davidsnieckus2 good points, trying similar approach in CA.
The un sophisticated(
borrower theme seems to be part of the bankster attack on us. There could be no meeting of the minds so these “loans” and “contracts” that were used not only to profit on were used to brain wash policy makers and the genera public that we were the deadbeats trying to get away w a free house. We had no say because of the “4 corners” of the contract.they said and I actually have a bank lawyer saying because of the signature I agreed that everything in the documents was true!
This is a partial statement of my testimony to the Judicial committee in Massachusetts on July 16, 2019
Banking is an implemented lie. And to cover up that lie, Bankers and their lawyers and their lobbyists have disregarded various laws.
There are three basic arguments for establishing a moratorium on foreclosures.
1. There is the AB INITIO argument ( Void from the beginning)
2. There are the civil and criminal violations argument
3. There is the moral and ethical hazard argument
These civil and criminal violations must be addressed.
And the way for the truth to surface is to have a moratorium on foreclosures.
The following have already has been presented to the Senate Judiciary committee by Grace Ross AND must be addressed by the Joint Judiciary committee
The evidence of 160 civil violations
The evidence of 60 criminal violations
Factual Considerations must be EMPHASIZED
1. Banks DO NOT LEND YOU ACTUAL MONEY.
2. Instead, banks lend so-called borrower’s promise to pay as an asset entry on their books and charge them interest! Again that is criminal usury!
3. One’s promissory note that one signs represents the REAL MONEY!
4. Individuals were lied to, and deceived, at the closing, creating a VOID mortgage!
5. These VOID mortgages are then bundled as “SECURITIES” and sold to investors.
6. During the foreclosure process Courts are accepting false, forged and misleading documents.
If you knew for certain, without a doubt, that your signature on the promissory note CREATES NEW MONEY in the monetary system…would you be AMAZED?
If you knew for certain, without a doubt, that banks DO NOT lend depositor’s money nor do they lend their own money, would you pass a moratorium on foreclosures?
Legislators!, Especially Judicial legislators. It is your responsibility to see we have a Moratorium on foreclosures to re-establish economic justice with the time to study and re-think how money is created and how it enters the system. A moratorium would give banks notice that their scheme of pretend lenders is about to be exposed to the public.
And this is a brazen, arrogant and intelligence insulting failure of our Court and Legal System,., At the very first mention of fraudulent documents being used to steal homes, our Court’s NATIONWIDE should have responded with a “no more foreclosures until legitimacy is proven under existing Law”. And they didn’t. Turn it around… Individual suing multiple Banks and just 1 Bank yells “FORGED DOC’S!!!” and what would have happened?
On the other hand, Einstein’s that they all are they also didn’t figure in the computational values and the speed of the technological improvements our computing Industry has come up with either!
Using existing Court’s (Nationwide) OWN RECORDS to build sophisticated databases which can then be separated first by “impossible documents used” (FRAUD & FORGERIES) EVERY illegal foreclosure committed using same impossible document CAN be singly addressed in milliseconds and those who’s homes were stolen using just those previously mentioned methods FIRST can be made whole again… LEGALLY!
Proving same should provide the necessary legal impetus to gather all computing records from each of the Lenders, each of the Servicer’s, each of the Trusts and everyone else involved. Modern computing power has increased exponentially in just the last few years… and it continues to do so. Using sophisticated programming, those who lost to theft could and should well be recompensed. By the Banks that have had record Profits and record growth since the stealing spree began.
Remember this: “JUSTICE ISN’T SERVED UNTIL CRIME VICTIMS ARE”
Kathryn Turman – Director of the FBI’s Office for Victim Assistance
Those of us who have already been preyed upon and lost our homes through this scheme, which is fraud and crime as far as most of us homeowners are concerned, need to be made whole. Most of us have been stripped of our main asset, our home, and spent all our liquid and convertible (retirement) assets in trying to prevent and/or defeat the crime that was committed against us. Then it was further cemented by the court system, and the state’s version of the UCC. So without the lid being blown off the scheme, and the government making the perpetrators compensate us all, we are dead in the water, we have no hope. There is not enough money in the whole USA to defeat the scheme by doing it through one homeowner/former homeowner’s ability to pay the legal fees over the period of time the perpetrators can drag the issue out through the courts. Much less find a lawyer who understands and is willing to fight for any of us.