wazua Fri, Apr 3, 2026
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In

2 Pages<12
Mortgages - Are banks at risk?
VituVingiSana
#11 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:24:00 AM
Rank: Chief

Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,361
Location: Nairobi
mwekez@ji wrote:
@VVS

•Why would a borrower refuse to sign the amended agreements
Because is benefits the borrower to be under the 'current' loan then weaken his position vis-a-vis the bank. The only reason the bank wants the borrower to sign an amendment is to strengthen its position!
•Will banks really take the actions of such a borrower kindly
No, but does that matter? How often has a bank ever been nice to you?
•I reiterate; the law is an ass, an idiot! Banks would certainly find a way of hammering such a borrower, if s/he comes up.
Maybe, but the law seems to be on the borrower's end/favor

Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
VituVingiSana
#12 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:27:31 AM
Rank: Chief

Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,361
Location: Nairobi
King G wrote:
Laws dont apply restropective as far as i know and therefore banks are in pole position to win any legal battle
That's what caught the banks off-guard despite the intense lobbying. It has been applied retroactively. The same happened with the "land laws" re: new constitution regarding ownership of land by 'foreigners' or firms with even some foreign ownership i.e. conversion of freehold & 999-yr leasehold to 99-yr leasehold. This issue came into play for the listed Agricultural Firms.
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
Aguytrying
#13 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:15:09 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/11/2010
Posts: 5,040
VituVingiSana wrote:
King G wrote:
Laws dont apply restropective as far as i know and therefore banks are in pole position to win any legal battle
That's what caught the banks off-guard despite the intense lobbying. It has been applied retroactively. The same happened with the "land laws" re: new constitution regarding ownership of land by 'foreigners' or firms with even some foreign ownership i.e. conversion of freehold & 999-yr leasehold to 99-yr leasehold. This issue came into play for the listed Agricultural Firms.


The unknown is how the banks and customers will react to the new law, this is the deciding factor. Just when i was warming up to HFCK...drat
The investor's chief problem - and even his worst enemy - is likely to be himself
VituVingiSana
#14 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:45:00 AM
Rank: Chief

Joined: 1/3/2007
Posts: 18,361
Location: Nairobi
Aguytrying wrote:
VituVingiSana wrote:
King G wrote:
Laws dont apply restropective as far as i know and therefore banks are in pole position to win any legal battle
That's what caught the banks off-guard despite the intense lobbying. It has been applied retroactively. The same happened with the "land laws" re: new constitution regarding ownership of land by 'foreigners' or firms with even some foreign ownership i.e. conversion of freehold & 999-yr leasehold to 99-yr leasehold. This issue came into play for the listed Agricultural Firms.


The unknown is how the banks and customers will react to the new law, this is the deciding factor. Just when i was warming up to HFCK...drat
A crooked borrower can take advantage. What happens if a 'good' borrower dies & his 'other' family shows up? How long do these cases take to resolve?
Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
the deal
#15 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:53:57 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,534
Location: Windhoek/Nairobbery
Fear mongering too much, at the end of the day folks will not default....there is the CRB were defaulters names are taken...you will never borrow again!
sparkly
#16 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:49:17 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 9/23/2009
Posts: 8,083
Location: Enk are Nyirobi
Needless fear.

How will the requirement for a spouse to sign the mortgage document affect the mortgage uptake?

If anything this will be an added security, if both spouses are involved. Two securities are better than one.
Life is short. Live passionately.
guru267
#17 Posted : Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:16:50 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 6,675
Location: Nairobi
Looks like a lot of low EQs on this thread..

Mark 12:29
Deuteronomy 4:16
Aguytrying
#18 Posted : Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:35:12 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/11/2010
Posts: 5,040
King G wrote:
Laws dont apply restropective as far as i know and therefore banks are in pole position to win any legal battle


You are absolutely right. Section 108(2)of the Land Registration Act(the new law) says that both the rights of the bank and the liability of the mortgage holder will not be affected.
The investor's chief problem - and even his worst enemy - is likely to be himself
Aguytrying
#19 Posted : Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:36:45 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/11/2010
Posts: 5,040
VituVingiSana wrote:
mwekez@ji wrote:
@VVS

•Why would a borrower refuse to sign the amended agreements
Because is benefits the borrower to be under the 'current' loan then weaken his position vis-a-vis the bank. The only reason the bank wants the borrower to sign an amendment is to strengthen its position!
•Will banks really take the actions of such a borrower kindly
No, but does that matter? How often has a bank ever been nice to you?
•I reiterate; the law is an ass, an idiot! Banks would certainly find a way of hammering such a borrower, if s/he comes up.
Maybe, but the law seems to be on the borrower's end/favor



Section 108
The investor's chief problem - and even his worst enemy - is likely to be himself
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2026 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.