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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (78914)	9/1/2011 7:29:55 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218046

yes, the lender takes it on the chin, no doubt about it. but it might be the only way when it comes to sovereigns. otherwise, default, and the lender takes it on the chin, except via an uppercut instead of a right hook. same ultimate result. bottom line, houses of cards always fall down.

To: skinowski who wrote (78914)	9/4/2011 2:57:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218046

Skinow, after dealing with thousands of people up close and personal who owe money [as a salesman in the industrial/commercial markets in the oil industry] one can get an in depth understanding of the psychology of debt. I was very successful at credits and collections and issuing credit in the first place and found it fascinating and fun. < I can't see how this is different from the "second" way -- namely, the lender taking it on the chin. > People like those writers have little concept about debt and not much insight into the emotional states underlying debt. A bunch of persiflage as per those writers is necessary to dress up what you correctly described in other language, to the extent that they even contrived to get "mathematical", "rational" and "moral" on their side. An interesting aspect of debt is that debtors will blame the creditors for the woes of the debtors. It's a quite childish thinking but right in a sense in that the debtors are emotional retards with limited intellectual horsepower who presume that Mummy and Daddy will tell them what they may or may not do. They get annoyed if Mummy or Daddy don't keep them in line. Being emotional retards, they are like drug addicts in that they will beg for, demand, cajole, threaten for, "just a bit more, one more time, I really will be able to pay some back next week". Normally, they show up with a cursory evaluation of their personality and business and certainly in a more studied consideration of their financial attitudes and abilities. The best way to control bad debt is to not take the people on in the first place. Cash before delivery is a good way to avoid bad debtors. About quarter of companies are inherently bad credit managers and need attention regularly. Quarter need some attention. Only about half simply pay their bills as agreed. I suppose similar proportions of people show up in retail debtors since debtor attitudes are really a matter of emotions and people are people whether running companies or their own lives. Mqurice