Beware secured loan

antrobus

pvt wrote: »

Where did I say that?....

Here

pvt wrote: »

.., then the risk is pretty much all with the borrower.

pvt wrote: »

....
There is far less risk of loss, and any loss is likely to be far lower, for a lender with a secured loan than with an unsecured one.

So it depends on the risk of loss. Perhaps the risk of loss on the kind of secured lending that 'FF' is engaged in is 10%? Like I said before; it depends on the borrower and what credit risk you think they represent.

antrobus

Mara69 wrote: »

I bet FF is Freedom Finance.

Could well be.

Secured loans from £5,000 - £100,000 - Typical 17.3% APR variable - (rates from 11.89% to 33.03% APR)

Or

Unsecured loans from £500 - £15,000 - Representative 15.9% APR variable - (rates from 7.00% to 162.8% APR)

You could say that a rate of 17.8% was an absolute steal compared to a rate of 162.8%.

Mara69 wrote: »

...Personally, I think anyone with half a brain will see that the deal on the table is ridiculously bad. Just say a polite no thanks and hang up. No need to listen to the hard sell at all.

Personally, I'd agree. Clearly however, there are people to whom a bad deal is better than no deal at all. Which is why the likes of Freedom Finance exist.

pvt

Antrobus,

How does: "the risk is pretty much all with the borrower" become "companies that lend on a secured basis never incur bad debts". The emphasis on "never" being yours.

I think I wrote perfectly comprehensible English. It didn't need interpreting, translating, or to have some emphasis introduced to change its meaning.