Talk:Loan/Archive 1

Archive 1

What should go here

What should go here, and what should go on the debt page? Is doesn't make sense to duplicate information. --Robert Merkel 07:36 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The page says: "A loan is a redistribution of financial assets over time, between the lender and the giver of the loan. The borrower initially receives an amount of money from the lender".
Shouldn't the first use of "lender" be replaced by "borrower", and "giver of the loan" be replaced by "leander"? Thue 09:24, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes it should. I've fixed it. mydogategodshat 14:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The articles Grameen Bank and Subsidy are currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you want to support the article, you can vote for it there.--Fenice 06:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed criticism by anon

I deleted the following piece

Acting as a provider of loans is one of the principal task for financial institutions. Most people believe that bank loans are generally funded by deposits -- or other people's money. This is true for Islamic banks, but not for Western banks. Western bank loans are actually based on fraud. Why? Because bank loans are funded not by deposits on hand, but by the borrower's future credit. Robert Hemphill, former Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta said "If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible -- but there it is" (Irving Fisher, 100% Money (New York: Adelphi, 1936), p. xxii. The loan itself is all credit or "debt" and is created out of thin air with a few keystrokes on the keyboard. Few people realize that at the moment any loan is requested, there is no money in existence to cover the loan. Herein lies the fraud, and it is virtually the same thing as check kiting, except this is loan kiting on the grandest scale. When the borrower signs the promissory note as part of the loan application process, the borrower rarely knows that after leaving the bank, the bank "deposits" that promissory note in their own bank in a separate account in the borrowers own name, and then funds the loan over to the borrower's chequing account with that "promissory note" or "check". This is why the bank requires you to have an account at their bank before they issue a loan -- if they do not, they cannot complete this internal process. Bank loans are really just a simple scheme where the bank takes your asset, liquidates it, and gives it back to you (bearing interest of course). More ironically though, is that in fractional reserve banking, the "down payment" is also often supplied by the borrower. This means that not only is the borrower supplying the loan itself in the form of a promissory note, they are also supplying the "fraction" that will increase the banks real assets which allow them to create a loan and stay within the parameters of the law that sets the "lending" limit for fractional reserve banking.

Part of it is POV language, part of it is outright false. An expert eye is required. `'mikka (t) 17:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I used to work very high in lending services at a major US bank before we were bought out. I think I am very qualified to be the "expert eye" you require. I don't see anything in this paragraph that is false. In fact, did you know we (at least in my dept) were required to take classes where we were required to fill out a non-disclosure agreement, vowing never to speak about the things taught in the class? Whats written above is what we were taught, and what we could not talk about.

Everything written above is true, every day I saw promissory notes with deposit stamps fly across my desk, and mailed to the Federal Reserve. If no one will challenge the above statement, I will edit it and put it back in the article, except I will include much more secretive information on the mechanism involved. Goldwings (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Explanation required for removal of my edit posting on loans

Mikka, I have been through MANY legal processes that validate my position, and the comments I placed in the loan article. I have also consulted a retired bank administrator from the Royal Bank of Canada, who validates my analysis of how loans come into being. I have put references in the article now of sources that are validated by some very famous and knowledgeable individuals. Sir, if you can post your objections in this discussion with sources better than mine, please do so. If an expert eye is what you desire, then I welcome pursual of this in this forum and we will see who has the expert eye and who does not.

I've begun to add proper notation to my edits. Thanks for pointing that out -- it's wikified! I've added clarification to the first quote I added, since I believe the source of a loan is important to understand, and in fact the source of the nations money supply is loans!

I will continue to research out the sources for my comments, and add them as time permits. I'm out of time at the moment, but will revisit this ASAP. I've also removed a few comments, and will continue to remove / modify parts that are appear to be resting on my experience, and are not able to be referenced. Thanks for your comments and the welcoming greeting.

JD

JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpd23 (talk • contribs)

The material appears completely unverifiable, overly POV, and probably original research, and it appears to asserting truth without considering any opposite or alternate views. Because of this it is quite unencyclopaedic. Can you provide a source published by a reputable publisher which can be easily verified. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First, welcome Jpd23. At wikipedia, it is the responsibility of the contributor who wants a fact to appear in the article to cite sources for that fact. Without citations, any editor may remove the fact, even if it is true.

That citation has been done for this quotation: Robert Hemphill, former Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta said "If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible -- but there it is". (But the form of the citation could be wikified - see [Wikipedia:Footnotes].) However, I believe that including the quote here is based on and propagates a misunderstanding of what the quote is discussing - it is discussing the Money supply, not loans.

The remainder of the the material that User:jpd23 proposes adding is not cited. Above, he/she asserts essentially that the rest is the result of their own knowledge and personal communications. Such materials to me appear to be original research and thus contrary to wikipedia policy. GRBerry 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Quit screwing with the facts

All those who are screwing with the factual information on loans, get your facts straight first. I'm speaking of the fans of the "tradional explanation" of how loans work. Secondly, the new section entitled "criticism of banks" is ridiculous. That is not criticism, it is just the way it is. Thirdly, the original article is a joke. It states "The borrower initially receives an amount of money from the lender". This is patently false. There are scholars on record stating this is false. Initially the borrower gives the bank a promissory note. That is where the money comes from. I understand the inablility of the average Joe to comprehend this concept, but that does not change the facts that bank loans are funded ENTIRELY by the borrower himself. If you just can't get past this FACT, then PROVE it wrong with citations better than mine, or go home.

JD

At the very least, the "criticism of banks" section is highly unencyclopedic as written, as well as NPOV. While there is some very interesting material there that I am not in a position to immediately judge the factual accuracy of, it could be at the least condensed into a much shorter NPOV paragraph rather than a rambling and informal page-long POV rant. Balancer 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of Criticism

The section on criticism of loans by banks and financial institutions should be removed from this article for two reasons: (1) It is not NPOV. (2) It does not have particular relevance to the nature of loans in general. Regardless of whether the claims made in that section are true, the purpose of the article is to define and present a neutral viewpoint of the meaning and applications of loans. Therefore, the lack of a competing view, which most certainly exists, makes the inclusion of this section unsuitable. Furthermore, it is not difficult to see that original research with proper and ample citation need not present neutrality on a particular subject! To do so would not be considered particularly robust research, but it is nonetheless cited and factually true--therefore, simple truth and evidence thereof is insufficient grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Finally, as the section specifically alleges that loans conducted by "Western banks" are fradulent, it lacks the scope of the topic, which is loans in general. Thus discussion about the use of loans in historical and/or non-corporate contexts would.

I appreciate the author's desire to communicate their ideas about the nature of loans as conducted in many Western economies, but it is clearly advocating a particular point of view which is not balanced. To say that loans derive their value from the promise of repayment, rather than the financial backing of the lender itself, is one thing. To then use the word "fradulent" to describe this transaction is quite another. Wickerprints 22:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed this section. If someone wants to write an article that is both a separate article and NPOV the text is still present in the history. Deleteme42 17:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Added OR tag to Criticism section

I don't think it really needs much explanation why. It's packed full of unsourced claims and original research. If anyone disagrees with the tag, please reply here and I will provide examples from the article. Kasreyn 19:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Home Equity Loan

A home equity loan is secured by more than your home is worth sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? Where's the security? The term was coined by a very clever Wall Street type. Lending money to those with perfect credit while holding their home as security had some risk, but that could be adjusted for in pricing. This is really a "secured signature loan". Maybe this type loan could steal some business from the credit card industry or at worst augment it. Gotroot 21:11, 07 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it you suggest we change in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia Op (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

i just added cleanup and pov tags

one of several problems is:

"In this way, the bank or other lending institution creates money, which the borrower is now free to “spend.”

In addition to the principal, the lending institution generally charges the borrower a fee, referred to as interest on the debt, for the privilege of using this newly-created money. Note that the lender acts merely as an intermediary between the borrower and the party providing the goods or services that the borrower obtains with her loan money. The lender is not required to, and typically does not, furnish any tangible assets such as cash money.

In essence, the lending institution creates money out of thin air, by accounting entries, and makes a substantial profit in the process.[2]"

I think the above iconoclastic claim is actually a fair portrayal,(in the United States right now anyway), but I am no economist and verifiability and neutrality of viewpoint are what count.

the citation is to:

Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free by Ellen Hodgson Brown, published by Third Millennium Press. Brown is a lawyer; she may or may not know more than mainstream economists, but if her views were mainstream, it would be possible to find them expressed in a major textbook.Rich (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Car loan redirects here

Most distinct types of personal loans seem to have their own page, with the exception of car loan which redirects here. I think it makes sense for car loans to have a dedicated page. One source is Average Car Loan Interest Rate Drops to Record Low, Edmunds.com Reports. II | (t - c) 21:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Contractual period?

In the English speaking world, the focus seems to be the date of repayment rather than the contractual period, whereas in German, you'd always talk about the period of time over which repayment is stretched. What is the correct idiomatic term, can you say 'contractual period'? --Cancun771 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)