Non Expert Advice

[iamman51]

Just coming on board here to discuss commercial banking laws, and I see some non experts talking about lending like they are experts.


In the closed thread titled foreclosure drivel, they are incorrect.

The promissory note is the basis of the loan, it is the makers asset. I know this because I am a v.p. for lending for Regions bank and have done this for 20 years.


Let me explain something.

Banks need reserves in order to make loans, there are only two ways to increase reserves. First is deposits, but with only around 1 trillion in printed currency, at the 9 to 1 reserve ratio that would mean only 10 trillion in TOTAL loans for every bank for any reason. Second way to increase reserves is by accepting notes. The note increases reserves and allows us to loan out 9 times the amount of the note.

Without the note a loan is NOT possible ( meaning banks can not loans against reserves it does not have)
, unless you can show how on a 9-1 ratio, how 1 trillion in deposits can support 13 trillion in home loans alone, not counting any other loans made.

For those of you who think they can get technical about it, here is a Forbes write up on it.

Firstly, here’s a short explanation of bank lending. Under normal circumstances, deposits and loans are more-or-less equal across the banking system as a whole.

This is because when a bank creates a new loan, it also creates a new balancing deposit.

It creates this “from thin air”, not from existing money: banks do not “lend out” existing deposits, as is commonly thought.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/francesc...-out-reserves/

Also if you are skeptical of what I say, feel free to contact Todd Walker as he is considered an expert on this subject.

Good day gentlemen and ladies

- - - Updated - - -

Here is an even more technical write up based off the Forbes link.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/bank-lending-bank-reserves.html

Read the comments as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is Todd Walker in a case that was lost but the facts of what he said were not disputed.

http://fightthefraud.com/affidavit-of-walker-f-todd/


As in the other thread was talk of the Daly case and someone said Daly snowed the justice.

If the person read the case he would know the justice did not believe Daly, he did believe the bank president who backed everything Daly said.

[adjusterjack]

In the closed thread titled foreclosure drivel, they are incorrect.

There are hundreds of threads in dozens of forums. When you comment on another thread please put a link to it.

Otherwise your post is pointless.

[free9man]

It's all in this thread Jack: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...409#post904409

Given that the person who was promoting the same thing our brand new user is was banned, I would question the veracity of this post. It would be a most incredible coincidence for someone to just stumble across that particular topic.

[adjusterjack]

It's all in this thread Jack: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...409#post904409

Oh, that one. The loony.

Given that the person who was promoting the same thing our brand new user is was banned, I would question the veracity of this post. It would be a most incredible coincidence for someone to just stumble across that particular topic.

Maybe.

But the new poster doesn't seem to be getting on the loony bandwagon just yet.

"Banks need reserves in order to make loans, there are only two ways to increase reserves. First is deposits, but with only around 1 trillion in printed currency, at the 9 to 1 reserve ratio that would mean only 10 trillion in TOTAL loans for every bank for any reason. Second way to increase reserves is by accepting notes. The note increases reserves and allows us to loan out 9 times the amount of the note.

Without the note a loan is NOT possible ( meaning banks can not loans against reserves it does not have) ,unless you can show how on a 9-1 ratio, how 1 trillion in deposits can support 13 trillion in home loans alone, not counting any other loans made."

That stuff I do seem to recall from college economics and finance courses.

But that doesn't appear to have anything to do with the loony theory that your mortgage debt disappears if the lender doesn't produce the note.

Remains to be seen if the new poster gets on the loony bandwagon.

[aaron]

The thread, "Foreclosure drivel", was merged with Yesme's prior thread in which he posted his bizarre and incorrect claims, long before this person registered his account to post here.

Oh yes... and this:

Free men can use their private property however they want. That said, your a citizen not a free man, and your car is public not private property.

While I know all the cases your talking about, they were all before the Erie railroad case, so none if them apply anymore.

Feel free to pm me or email me at. ...
Iamman51.blogspot@gmail.com

[free9man]

I would call that a clue! Guess he was trying a variation on appeal to authority by claiming to be an authority.

[Taxing Matters]

The promissory note is the basis of the loan, it is the makers asset. I know this because I am a v.p. for lending for Regions bank and have done this for 20 years.

A banker you may be, but that does not make you any expert in the law. Your statement that the promissory note is an asset of the maker is wrong. It is not. It is an obligation of the maker. He has an obligation to repay the note per its terms. As a banker you surely know and rely on this. You would not provide the bank’s money to someone to buy a house without getting that promise to repay the loan with interest. That’s how lenders make their money. The promissory note is, of course, an asset of the lender to whom the borrower gives the note. The note is worth something to the lender because it is an enforceable obligation to be paid money from the borrower.

[Buffetsghost]

Hi guys, Bob here. Longtime stalker on the board's, thought I would finally chime in on something I know about.


Taxing, are you suggesting that someone who knows the law, is more knowledgeable about the process of deposit expansion then a banker?

I have yet to meet a lawyer who knows more about banking then me.

You said that this guy, would not provide the banks money without a promise to pay?

It is clear the lending process escapes you. We don't provide the banks money.

Do you understand the gaap matching principal?

When we receive a note we enter it as an asset and a matching liability.

Do you know why it is a liabilty( something owed) from us to the borrower?

He was correct that it creates reserves. So let's say you give me a note that states you owe 100k. I enter it in the asset side. Now from YOUR note I can create an additional 900k from thin air to loan out at interest.

Now do I owe you anything for this note, or do I get to keep it for free while charging you two times the amount loaned (which was really money of account credited not loaned)?

Do you believe that money of account and money of exchange are equal?

If you work all day for five dollars ( money of exchange) , and in 6 seconds I can create five dollars (money of account, also called checkbook money)by entering it into an account.

Would you say the value of both those are the same?

[jk]

Buffetsghost;904734]Hi guys, Bob here. Longtime stalker on the board's, thought I would finally chime in on something I know about.

or not

Taxing, are you suggesting that someone who knows the law, is more knowledgeable about the process of deposit expansion then a banker?

I have little doubt that TM is more knowledgeable about the subject than whomever he was addressing at the time. I suggest whether they are a "banker" or not is bigger question.

I have yet to meet a lawyer who knows more about banking then me.

I suspect somebody with such a poor grasp of the English language may not be truthful in their statements.

You said that this guy, would not provide the banks money without a promise to pay?

Is that a question or a statement? It appears to be a statement yet you inserted a question mark at the end suggesting it is a question.

and that comma; was it inserted for a purpose other than to suggest you have a poor grasp of the English language and the proper use of a comma?

It is clear the lending process escapes you. We don't provide the banks money.

"The bank's (with an apostrophe) money" is not meant to be a literal statement. It refers to money the bank controls.

When we receive a note we enter it as an asset and a matching liability.

TM did not argue with that. He said the note is not an asset to the MAKER. Apparently you do not understand banking as well as you profess since the maker is also known as the borrower or debtor. You have misunderstood TM's statement apparently not understanding who the maker of the note is.

Do you know why it is a liabilty( something owed) from us to the borrower?

I think he does. I'm not sure you do.

the rest is your attempt to suggest you are knowledgeable. I believe it fails.

He was correct that it creates reserves. So let's say you give me a note that states you owe 100k. I enter it in the asset side. Now from YOUR note I can create an additional 900k from thin air to loan out at interest.

reserves are money held by the bank which they can invest (often in the form of loans) to earn money for the bank itself. Lending money does not create reserves. Accepting deposits creates reserves.

from Investopedia:

DEFINITION of 'Bank Reserve'

Bank reserves are the currency deposits which are not lent out to the bank's clients. A small fraction of the total deposits is held internally by the bank or deposited with the central bank. Minimum reserve requirements are established by central banks in order to ensure that the financial institutions will be able to provide clients with cash upon request.

You cannot "create" additional reserves. You may be able to leverage the reserves from which you can obtain additional funds so as to be able to lend those additional funds but you simply cannot create anything out of thin air, unless of course you are truly a magician.

Now do I owe you anything for this note, or do I get to keep it for free while charging you two times the amount loaned (which was really money of account credited not loaned)?

You work on simple interest? While a person may end up paying a cumulative 200% interest of the original debt, you do not "charge" 200% of the principle. Generally speaking that is illegal. Your charge is obviously a percentage of the debt owed at any given time. Whether the borrower ends up paying 200% of the original debt in interest is within their control. If they simply pay on the note as agreed, they will. Of course they could pay it in full in a shorter period of time and pay less than that 200%.

[Lehk]

ugh, reading soverign citizen drivel is a lot like stepping in dog doo.