PowWows.com Forums - Native American Culture

PowWows.com Forums - Native American Culture (http://forums.powwows.com/)
-   Native Issues (http://forums.powwows.com/f26/)
-   -   Forbes on Reservation Poverty (http://forums.powwows.com/f26/forbes-reservation-poverty-61856/)

AmigoKumeyaay 12-14-2011 10:05 PM

Forbes on Reservation Poverty
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkopp...-the-bottom-1/

12/13/2011 @ 7:32PM |4,875 views

Why Are Indian Reservations So Poor? A Look At The Bottom 1%

18 comments, 1 called-out + Comment now

When customers who live and work on the nearby Crow Indian reservation don’t make their car payments, there’s not much Square One Finance of Bil
lings, Montana, can do. Going to state court to repossess the car or garnish wages is not an option. Instead, Square One enters the murky realm of international affairs. The reservation is a separate nation—judgments in American courts can’t be enforced. And the chances of finding the customer and the car on the sprawling rural reservation, or winning in the unpredictable Crow courts, are slim. “We take on such a huge extra risk with someone from the reservation,” says Square One’s Nancy Vermeulen. “If I knew contracts would be enforced, then I could do a lot more business there.”

At a time when there’s a spotlight on America’s richest 1%, a look at the country’s 310 Indian reservations–where many of America’s poorest 1% live–can be more enlightening. To explain the poverty of the reservations, people usually point to alcoholism, corruption or school-dropout rates, not to mention the dusty undeveloped land that doesn’t seem good for growing much and the long distances to jobs. But those are just symptoms. Prosperity is built on property rights, and reservations often have neither. They’re a demonstration of what happens when property rights are weak or non-existent.

The vast majority of land on reservations is held communally. That means residents can’t get clear title to the land where their home sits, one reason for the abundance of mobile homes on reservations. This makes it hard for Native Americans to establish credit and borrow money to improve their homes because they can’t use the land as collateral–and investing in something you don’t own makes little sense, anyway.

This leads to what economists call the tragedy of the commons: If everyone owns the land, no one does. So the result is substandard housing and the barren, rundown look that comes from a lack of investment, overuse and environmental degradation. It’s a look that’s common worldwide, wherever secure property rights are lacking—much of Africa and South America, inner city housing projects and rent-controlled apartment buildings in the U.S., Indian reservations.

More than a third of the Crow reservation’s 2.3 million acres is individually owned, and the contrast with the communal land—often just on the other side of a fence—is stark, as Google satellite maps show. Terry Anderson, executive director of the Property & Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, co-authored a study showing that private land is 30-90% more productive agriculturally than the adjacent trust land. And this isn’t because the land is better: A study of 13 reservations in the West put 49% of the land in the top four quality classes, while only 38% of the land in the surrounding counties was rated that highly. For the Crow reservation, 48% of the land made the top four classes; only 33% of the adjacent land did. “The raw quality of the land is not that much different, it’s the amount of investment in that land that’s different,” he says.

Canada faces the same issues with its 630 bands—as tribes there are called—but thanks to the effort of a dogged reformer, there’s a push to allow reservation land to be privatized. Manny Jules, a former chief of the Kamloops Indian band in British Columbia, is lining up support for the First Nations Property Ownership Act, which would allow bands to opt out of the government ownership of their land and put it under tribal and private ownership. Reserves would become new entities that would have some of the powers of municipalities, provinces and the federal government to provide schools, hospitals and other services, and to enact zoning laws. He expects that the bill will be introduced in Parliament early in 2012 and is confident of approval by the end of the year. What’s forcing the issue is an acute housing crisis on the reserves. Without private property rights, little housing is being built even as the Indian population grows, and the Assembly of First Nations estimates that the reserves need 85,000 new houses immediately; the government is building only 2,200 a year.


“Markets haven’t been allowed to operate in reserve lands,” says Jules. “We’ve been legislated out of the economy. When you don’t have individual property rights, you can’t build, you can’t be bonded, you can’t pass on wealth. A lot of small businesses never get started because people can’t leverage property [to raise funds]. This act would free our entrepreneurial spirit, but it’s going to take a freeing of our imagination. We have to become part of the national and global economies.”

But even if Jules succeeds, there is no reformer like him in the U.S. to lead the charge here. Any effort at land reform must go through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But the bureau, originally part of the War Department and one of the federal government’s oldest agencies, isn’t about to pave the way for its own demise by signing off on an effort to privatize reservation land. The bureau faced this situation before: Under the 1887 Dawes Act, land could be allotted to individual Indians, but by 1934 so much land had been privatized that Congress reversed course and communal tribal property was back in favor. “Allotment threatened the bureau so it had an incentive to end the process,” says Dominic Parker, an economics professor at Montana State University. In any event, tribal councils wouldn’t be keen to give up the patronage and power that controlling vast amounts of land gives them. And the $2.5 billion a year that Washington spends on programs for Native Americans is a powerful deterrent to change. “For the bureau and other narrow interests, staying with the convoluted system of land ownership is safer than improving property rights,” he says. The bureau declined to comment.

Plus, there are practical issues. Any Indian who didn’t win clear title to land by 1934 was left with a fractional share of the reservation’s land held in trust. With every generation, each share was divided among more family members and today hundreds of people may have a partial claim to one share of trust land. Often there are no records of where many of these people are. In the Crow reservation, 1 million of the 2.3 million acres are held in trust for such individuals. The Dawes Act created another problem: The owners of privatized land in a reservation have always faced legal questions over whether they come under the jurisdiction of the tribal authority. The checkerboard pattern of private and trust land in some reservations make it tough for tribes to provide services and do land-use planning.

Anderson puts the choice for tribes in sharp terms. “If you don’t want private ownership, and want to stay under trusteeship, then I say, ‘fine.’ But you’re going to stay underdeveloped; you’re not going to get rich.”

AmigoKumeyaay 12-14-2011 10:08 PM

(Continued)

The problems of the reservations go well beyond residents not having the right incentives to upgrade their surroundings. With some exceptions, even casinos haven’t much benefited the several dozen reservations that have built them. Companies and investors are often reluctant to do business on reservations—everything from signing up fast food franchisees to lending to casino projects—because getting contracts enforced under tribal law can be iffy. Indian nations can be small and issues don’t come up that often, so commercial codes aren’t well-developed and precedents are lacking. And Indian defendants have a home court advantage. “We’re a long way from having a reliable business climate,” says Bill Yellowtail, a former Crow official and a former Montana state senator. “Businesses coming to the reservation ask, ‘What am I getting into?’ The tribal courts are not reliable dispute forums.”

Many reservations are rich in natural resources, but there’s no big rush to develop them, given the tangled issue of property rights and the risk of making a big investment without a secure legal footing. “We have 9 billion tons of high-quality coal sitting under the reservation, going largely untapped,” says Yellowtail. “Natural gas, too. Potential development galore, but that potential is never realized.” Indeed a $7 billion coal-to-liquids plan fell apart in April, though it was revived in a scaled-down version in July. Anderson adds that with any investment, “the tribe could change the deal after the fact because it’s sovereign.”

PAGE 2 OF 2

Some tribes are taking steps to improve their legal structures, such as adopting new commercial codes to make their laws more uniform. Over a 30-year period, reservations that had adopted the judicial systems of the states where they’re located saw their per capita income grow 30% faster than reservations that didn’t, according to a study by Anderson and Parker. A separate study by Parker shows that Native Americans are 50% more likely to have a loan application approved when lenders have access to state courts. “Putting reservations under the legal jurisdiction of the states, and facilitating better legal codes and better functioning court systems, would assist tribes in developing their land,” says Anderson.

A bigger obstacle to these reforms may not be logistics or special interests, but the culture of the reservations and the generations after generations of dependency. Indeed, a notice on a bulletin board in Garryowen, Montana, inside the Crow reservation and near the site of Custer’s Last Stand, announces when the next round of “per capita payment checks”—derived from Crow Nation trust income–will be mailed.

“Privatizing land is fine but it falls far short of the answer,” says Yellowtail. “Our people don’t understand business. After 10 or 15 generations of not being involved in business, they’ve lost their feel for it. Capitalism is considered threatening to our identity, our traditions. Successful entrepreneurs are considered sell-outs, they’re ostracized. We have to promote the dignity of self-sufficiency among Indians. Instead we have a culture of malaise: ‘The tribe will take care of us.’ We accept the myth of communalism. And we don’t value education. We resist it.”

But Yellowtail believes that the situation is improving. He says there are more entrepreneurs than 20 years ago as networks of Native American business people have sprung up in Montana and elsewhere. “We have to start with micro loans, encouraging small businesses. Then we have to make it okay to leave the reservation because the most successful are going to want to branch out. Entrepreneurs are going to have to stick their neck out, be a role model. We Indians are going to have to do it.”

wyo_rose 12-14-2011 11:12 PM

OMG, 'privatizing' reservation land?? Sounds like a good ploy to take NDN land out of NDN hands. I've seen the way banks on the rez here foreclose on tribal people's land...that's why they could afford to open a branch here on the rez. Makes me sick!!

LUCKILY there's a lot of land in trust here. Trust land isn't shared by the whole rez. My grandma bought her land from one of the original allottees of the land parcel. It is held "in trust" and has now been inherited by my cousins and myself. It's not owned by the tribe. We could choose to take it out of trust, turning it into "fee patent" land and start paying county taxes on it.

That would free it up to be used as collateral on loans, and the banks would sure LOVE that. They count on natives to default on their loans. It's appalling to see how a certain bank probably made $200K on land taken on collateral on a $20K loan.

So is that REALLY how non-natives get business loans...putting up their land as collateral???

Forbes needs to do another take!! I just see it as another way for the rich to get richer.

Why isn't there someone out there willing to put up micro-loans, mini-loans, store front space to rent out? Offer business classes, organize crafters and artists to help them sell their product?

AmigoKumeyaay 12-14-2011 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyo_rose (Post 1502907)
OMG, 'privatizing' reservation land?? Sounds like a good ploy to take NDN land out of NDN hands. I've seen the way banks on the rez here foreclose on tribal people's land...that's why they could afford to open a branch here on the rez. Makes me sick!!

LUCKILY there's a lot of land in trust here. Trust land isn't shared by the whole rez. My grandma bought her land from one of the original allottees of the land parcel. It is held "in trust" and has now been inherited by my cousins and myself. It's not owned by the tribe. We could choose to take it out of trust, turning it into "fee patent" land and start paying county taxes on it.

That would free it up to be used as collateral on loans, and the banks would sure LOVE that. They count on natives to default on their loans. It's appalling to see how a certain bank probably made $200K on land taken on collateral on a $20K loan.

So is that REALLY how non-natives get business loans...putting up their land as collateral???

Forbes needs to do another take!! I just see it as another way for the rich to get richer.

Why isn't there someone out there willing to put up micro-loans, mini-loans, store front space to rent out? Offer business classes, organize crafters and artists to help them sell their product?

Yep! Your post is much like those in the Comments Section following the Forbes article. You should go there and post up!

I will go get a few of the reader's comments to post here...very informative.

AmigoKumeyaay 12-14-2011 11:56 PM

dbartecchi 10 hours ago
Writing as a European settler who works alongside Native Americans on land tenure issues, I find Mr. Koppisch’s article raises awareness of some of the current challenges in the way of Native Americans from benefiting from their resources, but feel it is an overly simplistic, ahistorical analysis of poverty on reservations today. In fact, it is based on the same ethnocentric premise that was behind the creation of the Dawes Act in the first place. Namely, that all people are individual selfish utility-maximizes and the biggest thing in the way to “progress” for Native Americans is their collective utilization of natural resources. Thus, the problem, from Mr. Koppisch’s perspective, is that there hasn’t been ENOUGH privatization. To fully tease apart your argument you have to examine two central questions. 1. Is your basic premise correct, are Native American’s selfish-utility maximizes and do they share the same notion of “progress” as European settlers? And 2. Considering that western notions of progress were forced upon them through the Reservation system and policies such as the The General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) – was/is the poverty we see today really because there hasn’t been enough privatization. I challenge this notion and argue there might other, more obvious factors?

For some perspective into the first question, we can look at how Native Americans were organized prior to being forced onto ever smaller pieces of land by an invading army of settlers. Were Native American’s victims of their own communal use of natural resources, a self-created tragedy of the commons? While we can always find instances of resource destruction and conflict in the Archaeological record, but the fact remains, Native American’s thrived on this continent for thousands of years prior to the arrival of European settlers. And believe it not, this happened without privatization, individual allotments, and a centralized state to create laws and enforce contracts. Now, it would be equally false to assume that Native American’s, by definition, are communal and anti-capitalist, that’s just not true, in fact, the Lakota and other tribes were renowned for their role in the fur trade, controlling and manipulating markets around the globe. And in fact, there were internal struggles among Native American leaders over what direction to take. Lakota Chief Red Cloud believed that there was no stopping the influx of settlers and so tried to convince his people to assimilate. Crazy Horse, on the other hand, sought to protect the traditional way of life that extended beyond the boundaries of the Reservations. The point here is that the history of Native American’s extends thousands of years prior to the creation of Reservations. Pretty much none of that history included privatization. Rather, they were forced onto Reservations by an invading colonial army and were forced to participate in a western system of land tenure and agricultural production. But, history doesn’t end there. It’s not as if they were forced onto reservations, and then became equal participants in American society.

After the period of European settlement in North America between 1492-1887, Native Americans were left with reservations consisting of only 150 million acres. Recognized through treaties as sovereign nations, these lands were largely unpartitioned and communally managed, a practice considered by the U.S. Government to be a non-productive and irrational use of resources. The Government’s solution was the General Allotment Act (GAA) of 1887, also known as the Dawes Severalty Act. The act partitioned reservation lands into 160 acre parcels for each head of family, 80 acre parcels to orphans, and 40 acres parcels to each child. After all the allotments were issued, the remaining reservation lands in the West was transferred to the Government who then made it available to white settlers free of charge as part of the Homestead Act. This amounted to a loss of over 60,000,000 acres, nearly 2/3rds of all Indian lands. Beyond the significant loss of lands, the GAA also created several challenges for the use and inheritance of the remaining lands that would have profound implications for future generations of Native Americans.

- It broke apart communally managed lands into individually owned parcels, destroying the ability of many communities to be self sufficient on already limited and marginal lands.

- It disrupted traditional residency patterns, forcing people to live on allotments sometimes far from their relatives, eroding traditional kinship practices across many reservations.

- It destroyed communal control of lands, making it easier for private and government interests to gain access to the vast coal, oil, natural gas, agricultural, and grazing resources on Native American Reservations. This was done primarily through forced leases. Leased which, to this day, the government has failed to fully pay. in fact, according to Judge Robertson of the District Court of Columbia, Native American’s were shorted roughly 47 billion dollars in income collected by the government over the last 120 years.

- The GAA never established an adequate system for how lands would be transfered from generation to generation. Since the practice of creating a Last Will and Testament before death was not common and in some cases was outright offensive to the traditional inheritance practices of some Native American cultures, these lands passed from one generation to the next without clear divisions of who owned what. Today, lands have become so fractionated that it is common to have several hundred or even thousands of landowners on one piece land. This has created a severe obstacle today for individuals and families wanting to utilize their lands as they need to get permission from the other land owners on decisions related to the land. With limited resources to deal with this situation, the only option for most families is to lease their undivided fractionated lands out – often times to non-natives.

- Forced Fee Patenting, introduced with the 1906 Burke Act, amended the GAA to give the secretary of the interior the power to issue Indian Allottees determined to be “competent,” fee patents making their lands subject to taxation and sale. In other words, the government privatized indigenous lands. It as widely understood by government officials that lands, privatized under the Burke Act, would soon be liquidated. In 1922 the Government superintendent of the Pine Ride Reservation noted: “Careful observation of the results on the Pine Ridge reservation show that less than five percent of the Indians who receive patents retain their lands.” According to the Indian Land Tenure Foundation, between 1997 and 1934, nearly 27,000,000 acres of land was lost as a result of privatization.

- Indian Allottees determined to be “incompetent, ” under the Burke Act, were not allowed to live on or utilize their allotment, instead it was leased out by the Federal Government to oil, timber, mineral, and grazing interests. In many cases, Allottees did not even receive the income from the leases. This practice was so widespread that a 1915 Department of the Interior, Annual Report of the Pine Ridge Agency, nearly 56% of its residents were deemed “incompetent.” The longterm affect of this practice was how it physically and psychologically alienated Indian Allottees from their lands. For example many families today own land but have never lived on it, used it, or oftentimes, even know where it is located.
The various economic, social, and cultural disruptions created by the these acts over the last century is an underlying cause of poverty on many Native American Reservations today, negatively impacting housing construction, economic development, residency patterns, family and community cohesion, ecological health, cultural self-determination, and political sovereignty.

- The unequal land-use patterns seen on reservations today is a direct outcome of discriminatory lending practices, land fractionation and specifically, Federal policies over the last century that have excluded native land owners from the ability to utilize their lands while at the same time opening it up to non-native farmers and ranchers. Discriminatory lending practices, as argued in court cases such as the pending Keepseagle vs. Vilsack, claim that Native Americans have been denied roughly 3 billion in credit.

With the above facts in mind, is it really accurate to say that the poverty on Native American reservations is a result of “not enough privatization” or should we also consider the 120+ years of discrimination and abuse by the United States Government? My point here is not to argue against reforming the land tenure system on reservations. Rather, I believe tribes should have total control over their resources as guaranteed to them by their respective Treaties but also in a contested nature, that goes beyond the legal context of the 1800s but one rooted in UN Declaration of the rights of Indigenous People and their aboriginal claim. But beyond that, they should receive equal protection under the law which means investigating claims to seized lands illegally seized and unpaid lease contracts by the U.S. Government. But also, reparations for the damages caused by the violence and sexual abuse rampant in boarding schools.

I find it ironic how academics and journalists try to come up with new theories to explain poverty on reservations but fail to take into account the obvious. The government owes Native Americans at least 45 Billion dollars yet, in the settlement offered by the Obama administration, they are being compensated for less that .06% of that. And this hardly makes the news! Who else could be treated like this? How is this not a factor? How is the history of broken treaties and land theft not a factor? Until we as a American settlers take off our blinders and recognize how some people in this country have been and continue to this day to be denied their rights, we will never move beyond the racist legacy of this country

Zeke 12-14-2011 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyo_rose (Post 1502907)
That would free it up to be used as collateral on loans, and the banks would sure LOVE that. They count on natives to default on their loans. It's appalling to see how a certain bank probably made $200K on land taken on collateral on a $20K loan.

You do realize that the issue is default on the loan, not that a bank requires it for collateral.

If you pay the loan, nothing bad happens.

In reality, banks count on borrowers to pay their loans. I assure you they want $$$, not collateral

AmigoKumeyaay 12-14-2011 11:59 PM

(From Readers Comments section following Forbes article)

atagahi 9 hours ago

With all due respect, your ignorance of Indian history, culture and federal Indian law is overwhelming in your simplistic solution for Indian Country. It’s not entirely your fault as your schooling surely didn’t teach you the complex set of laws and regulations that comprise federal Indian law.

Do you really think that none of these have been tried before? The reason that Allotment didn’t work anywhere it was tried was because non-Indians cheated Indians out of the allotted lands so quickly that it made the poverty worse, not better.

Angie Debo found that within 20 years of the Dawes Act being forced on the tribes in Oklahoma, nearly every parcel had been separated by fraud and swindle from Indian hands. (I believe it was 97%, but it has been a while since I read the book.)

Similar situations occurred everywhere privatization of land rights was foisted on Indian people. Although fractionation is a problem, removing Indian lands from Trust is not the answer. (There is private land ownership, but it is held in trust by the U.S. for Indians.)

Nor is divesting Indian court systems of jurisdiction, something done methodically and to the detriment of Indian people by the Supreme Court.

Such ill-fated and ignorant solutions come from residual racism about Indian people and Indian cultures that have different ways of doing things and resolving disputes. Just because they don’t always resemble non-Indian courts or produce the regularity that non-Indian businesses want, doesn’t mean they are inferior or don’t service their people the way the people democratically prefer. It is no different than doing business in a foreign country, which businesses do all the time without insisting the U.S. change the individual nations.

Also, please consider that many tribes don’t want to see the horrific damage that is done to their land to tear out the mineral resources that non-Indians want to plunder. The BIA is notoriously bad at negotiating market rates and getting the money to the individual land owners, as well. There is a long, sordid history about mineral and gas rights that should be a caution to the author, if he took the time to learn the history.

Instead, if you want to see positive changes, then undo the damage done by the Supreme Court in removing tax jurisdiction by tribes over their own lands for non-Indians.

It is the inability to compete with states and local governments to attract businesses to reservations that is the cause of the lack of businesses and employment.

If a business decides to build a factory on a reservation there is a complicated jurisdictional analysis that has to be computed based on who owns the land and who owns the company. If it isn’t exactly right by Supreme Court standards, the state gets to tax the business and the wages of the workers instead of the tribe, depriving the tribe of vital revenue to improve the reservations and the plight of their people. The state gets to collect taxes on the wages of the Indian people who are working on their reservation, instead of going back to the tribe to improve the reservation.

As for Mr. Ferguson’s comment, please do research before castigating tribes’ economic development plans.

1) Most tribes’ reservations were purposefully placed far from urban centers. People rarely drive to the distant reservations to gamble.

2) Not all tribes have gaming. Of the ones that do, not all have successful gaming because of the lack of proximity to urban centers. There are a very few that make enough money to pull an entire tribe out of the poverty, much less create new businesses.

3) States fight gaming, even though they technically should not have a say in what goes on, on a reservation. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act prevents tribes from offering different types of gaming that are different from what a state offers. That severely hampers the amount of revenue that comes in from gaming for a tribe.

4) Some tribes are doing well using gaming revenue to create new businesses. But they are the ones located in the right places with the right types of gaming rights.

My own tribe has limited gaming but does well with its casinos. Even so, they only produce 17% of our annual budget. Our other businesses produce the rest, with U.S. grants and programs. Most of our money goes into healthcare of our people because the federal government never fully funds the Indian Health Service (something else you could seek to change).

I appreciate both of your concern for our people. There are problems presents which you see. We are not too ignorant to find our own solutions. We could use some political help to clear out the morass of government laws and regulations that deprive us of the ability to soar on our own volition. That is where you can help us. Let us make the decisions about businesses and property rights on our own.

AmigoKumeyaay 12-15-2011 12:02 AM

geezhegonangokwe 6 hours ago

Symptoms ….. yes, a lot of the social pathology that you see and hear about on the Indian reservations are symptoms ….. and you can go way back to 1879 when the U.S government made it mandatory that Native American Indian children go to ‘boarding schools’. Federal agents went to the rezs’ and kidnapped/abducted children–some as young as 4 years of age– from their loving families and sent them far away to Indian boarding schools to be ‘civilized, Americanized and religionized’.
My grandmother was sent to two different schools here in northern Michigan. I grew up being ashamed of my Native American heritage. I found out five years ago about the big secret in my family — I am 50 years old. Never heard one word spoken about the boarding schools. I grew up with alcoholic great-aunts, great-uncles, aunts and uncles — all of them were/are former boarding schools survivors … yes survivors, because, that is what they are. The social pathology that you see and hear about in Indian country is because of those BOARDING schools. When you are a child, and are subjected to emotional, physical, mental and sexual abuse on a daily basis for years — 13 years for most of them — once they left the schools, they lived what they were taught. They tried to make it out there in mainstream society and found that they didn’t fit in so they moved back to their rezs’ and found that they didn’t fit it there either. Most of them turned to alcohol, drugs, prostitution, etc …..
I felt I had to speak up when I read this article — only because I am an advocate/educator about the Indian boarding schools, and the affects that those schools had on the Natives of yesterday and how the schools still affect the Natives of today (inter-generational trauma).

Miigwech for letting me share this

wyo_rose 12-15-2011 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 1502932)
You do realize that the issue is default on the loan, not that a bank requires it for collateral.

If you pay the loan, nothing bad happens.

In reality, banks count on borrowers to pay their loans. I assure you they want $$$, not collateral

Not this bank. They've found their niche. They can make much more selling the land that was put up as collateral.

And profitting in other ways too. There is no problem for them to get court orders to garnish people. They can turn a $50 overdraft into a $450 garnishment in the blink of an eye!

yaahl 12-16-2011 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 1502932)
You do realize that the issue is default on the loan, not that a bank requires it for collateral.

If you pay the loan, nothing bad happens.

In reality, banks count on borrowers to pay their loans. I assure you they want $$$, not collateral

While I can't argue with your logic Zeke, there is one small chink in it.

Banks and lending institutions can at anytime call in their loans. It can be for a myriad of reasons but there is nothing illegal about it. If the borrower can't refinance or pay on the called amount, the lender can seize collateral. That would be one of the risks. History is full of examples of when lending institutions called in their loans and the dire economics of when that occured.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright 2006, PowWows.com, LLC