Irrespective of that, if there is a balance left over after the collateral has been liquidated, why should it belong to the lender, not the borrower?
In the real world, if you had a $100k loan secured against a $200k house, but were unable to meet repayments, are foreclosed and the house sold, would you expect the lender to keep the whole $200k proceeds, or just the $100k that they are owed?
I was not criticizing jacee or his answer, just curious about what common practice is in these situations.
In the real world, if you had a $100k loan secured against a $200k house, but were unable to meet repayments, are foreclosed and the house sold, would you expect the lender to keep the whole $200k proceeds, or just the $100k that they are owed?
I was not criticizing jacee or his answer, just curious about what common practice is in these situations.
Common practive in lending is to take collateral that is worth 120%+ of the loan amount so it can be sold for MORE than the loan+interest amount..
The defaulter doesn't need a refund. Anyway the little tiny extra BTC is not worth the pain in the ass that is selling accounts..
Many lenders explain this right in their OP..