Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud Deplorable who wrote (46946)	8/11/2007 12:56:14 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 78434

There never is. That is the principle of the time value of interest. With the rise in corporate taxes and the fall in dividends, this predicated a subsequent rise in PEA/stock price, so equity value could keep investment rolling. All loans are based on time value. If you could call them and get the money right away then why borrow the money in the first place? Raising interest on mortgage when it is known that there is only so much money to pay them back over time, is a dirty trick. It is guaranteed to cause inflation and/or foreclosure. The crying need for it is moot, unless the lending institutions went and got themselves into trouble by 'lending' (securitizing, hypothecating) against the money out again and overleveraging (margining) it. uh oh... when will they over learn.. pollyanna bubble land. It should be illegal to overhypothecate receivables.. I think that is what got Enron in trouble... People who wish to shave bubbles can take advantage where they see a chance to shave at interest where they feel there will be a n advantage and they can grab all the collateral. Bank foreclosures are rarely needed. The principle of the 1929 crash was to grab all the stock and prevent any attempt at payback or paydown of margins. Banks got rich doing that. We could call this era, 'the rise of the banks'. Lately we have seen this in the screwing of the small creditor. He loans money to the bank and the bank screws him with charges, with government license. The government, brain dead, allows the banks with their money to overcharge the customer. There are only so many in the banking business due to gov't charters and there is no competition if they all get together and screw with one full front push. People could put their money in other savings areas, but now all services are being centrally charged whereever plastic holding of funds exists. And banks won't hold funds for credit unions. They call these plastic charges due to their 'extending credit' to get away with it. In fact we, the customer depositor have extended the credit to banks in depositing. When this gets no longer profitable we should play the same trick, and call our loans, i.e. withdraw the money and put it somewhere else. The question is where? We need to replace the lawyers who are in cahoots with the banks and get the laws changed so depositing can be done with some hope of maintaining value. One of the basic problems in business arises when certain groups are given de facto (gov't) advantages over others. Banks got Royal charters to lend money way back when. Freddie Mac and Fannies Mae got 0.5% interest advantage solely by volume of business. Their loans are NOT guaranteed by the government. Big mistake if you think so. They can go massively bust too if the economy heads south. EC<:-}