3 ms·

> Eg. if the lender is going bankrupt and selling the debt for 30% of it's value, they should offer that purchase price to the debtor? There's really nothing pr

> Eg. if the lender is going bankrupt and selling the debt for 30% of it's value, they should offer that purchase price to the debtor? There's really nothing prohibiting them from doing that, I don't see why a law needs to be changed for this to start taking place The argument you replied to isn't that the law should be changed to allow this to be offered to the debtor. The argument is that the law should be changed such that this is required to be offered to the debtor, prior to offering an external sale.

Ekaros 4y ago
Even more sensibly. I think it should be after someone has given an offer. As such market price would be set and lender could just buy at that or even have arrangement of getting someone else to pay and move loan to that. Ofc, the original buyer could offer instead offer to refinance.
conductr 4y ago
What's the price they're required to offer the debtor in that scenario? How does anyone know that's a fair price when there has been no other offers? Why should it be the debtor that benefits from the lender's misfortunes? This whole thing reeks of entitlement to me. If you take out a loan expect to pay it off. Don't expect that if the lender goes belly up that means you got some get out of jail free card.
- biotinker 4y ago
  To your first two questions, the Right Of First Refusal[0] has a long history of being a financial instrument for just about anything. I see no reason why this would be something different. The current system, to me, has just as much entitlement, just from the other side. Why should it be some unrelated party that benefits from the lender's misfortunes. The lending is between two parties, and it seems reasonable to keep it that way unless both parties agree not to. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal

Ekaros 4y ago

Even more sensibly. I think it should be after someone has given an offer. As such market price would be set and lender could just buy at that or even have arrangement of getting someone else to pay and move loan to that. Ofc, the original buyer could offer instead offer to refinance.

conductr 4y ago

What's the price they're required to offer the debtor in that scenario? How does anyone know that's a fair price when there has been no other offers? Why should it be the debtor that benefits from the lender's misfortunes? This whole thing reeks of entitlement to me. If you take out a loan expect to pay it off. Don't expect that if the lender goes belly up that means you got some get out of jail free card.

biotinker 4y ago
To your first two questions, the Right Of First Refusal[0] has a long history of being a financial instrument for just about anything. I see no reason why this would be something different. The current system, to me, has just as much entitlement, just from the other side. Why should it be some unrelated party that benefits from the lender's misfortunes. The lending is between two parties, and it seems reasonable to keep it that way unless both parties agree not to. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal