lets look at rule 1

quote..""Fact #1: when a borrower defaults on a loan,
it is no longer an asset, because the loan/asset ceases to have value""

tell that to the mug that just lost his house

that lost all his payments into the debt

tell that to the mugg who lost his credit

mate try to go to a mortgaugee auction
se that thing they are selling

is that an asset?

think hard ol mate

where did the asset go to
the babnker?...where is it?
on his books?

proffit/loss...lol
never the twain should meet

babnks cant loose!

then lenmt nothing...made a book entry
then got the house and all payments/costs..bonus etc

then got a bailout...lol

how do you sleep at night
defending criminals...with rules they make up as they go

robo signing mate
google if thats legal

Sorry one under god, I was trying to keep it really, really simple for you.

Obviously, I oversimplified, so I need to backtrack a little. Here's a more accurate version.

Fact #1: when a borrower defaults on a loan, it value as an asset will change, because the loan/asset ceases to have the same value as before.

Any such loans will most likely be segregated into a category of "distressed" assets, and a revaluation conducted, or a sale effected. If the asset is on-sold (e.g. through a mortgagee sale) than the difference between that amount and the asset's balance sheet value is processed through the P&L. A lower amount causes a loss, a higher amount causes a profit to be recorded. In either case, the asset disappears from the balance sheet.

>>tell that to the mug that just lost his house<<

Which mug would that be? The one who borrowed money that he couldn't afford to repay? Or the bank for lending him the money in the first place?

>>babnks cant loose! then lenmt nothing...made a book entry then got the house and all payments/costs..bonus etc then got a bailout...lol<<

You mean, these banks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008%E2%80%93present)

To save you the trouble of counting, in the US alone, 412 banks failed between 2008 and 2011 y.t.d.

So much for a universal bank bailout.

perscil quote...""Let's take a closer look.""

yep i have

you said...""Obviously, I oversimplified, so I need to backtrack a little.

Here's a more accurate version.

NEW*..Fact #1: when a borrower defaults on a loan,
it value as an asset will change, because the loan/asset ceases to have the same value as before."""

you previously said...OLD*..""Fact #1:
when a borrower defaults on a loan,
it is no longer an asset, because the loan/asset ceases to have value""..

LOL

those egsamples
certainly changed arround..eh brother?

that wernt no 'partial quote'
it was pure gall

not sure what..first factoid to read into
your connection...with your latest factoid

""Any such loans will....[lol]..*most likely [lol]
be segregated into a category of "distressed" assets,

and a revaluation conducted, or a sale effected""...

effected or affected..

""If the asset is on-sold (e.g. through a mortgagee sale) than the difference..between that amount and the asset's balance sheet value is processed through the P&L*.""

profit/loss..plus accounting fees charges and anything extra they can plie on

"" A lower amount causes a loss, a higher amount causes a profit to be recorded...In either case, the asset disappears from the balance sheet.""

so lets see
is the change of terms relivant

""balance sheet""
''processed through the p&l*"

or just to baffle the peons with bull

the thing is we shouldnt be bailing out the money stystem
by borrowing it at intrest from the money system

a bond IS MONEY
its the only lawfull legal tender there is

govt dont need cash
its got something much better bonds

the bankers get away with murder
cause their bluebloods..culling the serfs
cause they are good at muddying up the factoids#1
cause they can spin the spin [lies]..of the faceless men

yes men
and their defenders
defending that morally offending

Oh.

>...or just to baffle the peons with bull<<

If you don't even understand what a profit and loss account is for, one under god, then for goodness' sake stop making ridiculously uninformed statements about bankers and banking.

Sheesh.

It's not rocket science. It is just common sense. You don't need a degree in accounting to understand it. Just... follow the money.

http://www.youtube.com/user/chunkymark#p/u/13/MH8iq6lvL78

When the government... takes public money and gifts it to the banks,
so the banks can turn around LOAN it back to us then,
what is that called?

it is called THEFT

because everyone knows the bank does not lend money.
Banks extend credit.....by kiting a cheque in your name.*

So..."in absence of evidence to the contrary"....
the banks, kept the "public's money" for bonuses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_kiting

Corporate kiting

Corporate kiting involves the use of a large kiting scheme involving perhaps millions of dollars to secretly borrow money or earn interest.

While limits are often placed on an individual as to how much money can be deposited without a temporary hold, corporations may be granted immediate access to funds, which can make the scheme go unnoticed.

This was the case with E. F. Hutton & Co. in the early 1980s
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewforum.php?f=43

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=12106
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=12055&start=20

One tiny flaw, one under god.

>>When the government... takes public money and gifts it to the banks,<<

Public money is not "gifted".

Therefore, no theft. Or THEFT, as you describe it.

>>...everyone knows the bank does not lend money<<

My bank lends me money, which they require that I pay back. I know of many others who have taken advantage of the same service.

>>Corporate kiting involves the use of a large kiting scheme involving perhaps millions of dollars to secretly borrow money or earn interest. <<

Can't be particularly secret, if you know about it.

Your link didn't take me to the E F Hutton story, by the way. Do you have any other examples, or is this thirty-year-old scandal the only one?