largest loan providers
What is the difference between recourse and non-recourse debt?
The difference between recourse and non-recourse debt is the ability of the lender to take the assets of the borrower if the debt is not paid. Non-recourse debt favors the borrower, while recourse debt favors the lender.
When a lender is given recourse rights in a borrowing arrangement, it means that the lender can pursue repayment of the debt from the borrower by seizing designated borrower assets. Thus, recourse debt refers to an agreement where the lender can attach borrower assets, while non-recourse debt refers to an agreement where the lender cannot do so (other than for assets specified as collateral).
However, a recourse arrangement may only allow the lender to attach specifically identified borrower assets, beyond which the lender has no ability to obtain additional borrower assets. In this case, the existence of a recourse feature may not provide complete risk mitigation for the lender.
A lender is most able to impose a recourse debt agreement on a borrower when the borrower is unable to obtain financing elsewhere on better terms, and especially when the borrower is in difficult financial circumstances. Conversely, a borrower may be able to demand non-recourse debt terms if it can select from many lenders and has such excellent financial results and asset reserves that it can justify its demands.
A lender may be more willing to grant credit under a recourse loan at a lower interest rate than would be the case with a non-recourse loan, since the lender’s risk of repayment is reduced under a non-recourse situation. Consequently, some borrowers are more willing to accept recourse terms in exchange for a reduced interest rate and/or other, more lenient borrowing terms.
Alternatively, a lender may be willing to grant less credit under a non-recourse agreement, usually only up to the amount of any collateral posted against the note. Since the lender has no recourse above the amount of the collateral, it is too risky to extend additional credit.
A lender has more power in a tight credit market, and so is more capable of imposing recourse terms. The reason is that fewer lenders are willing to issue funds, which minimizes the level of competition among lenders for the business of borrowers.
Our Number One Managed Bank Guarantee Program
$350K Deposit to 30 Million Non Recourse in 45 to 90 Days OR $500K Deposit to 100 Million Non Recourse in 45 to 90 Days
This program is an End to End Managed Bank Guarantee Funding and Monetization Program. The Program has two Options:
- $350K Deposit in 30 Million Non Recourse in 45 to 90 Days, OR
- $500K Deposit to 100 Million Non Recourse in 45 to 90 Days.
The program includes Total Deposit Protection with a very high profile Attorney Trust Account protected by a law firm that was founded by a Supreme Court Judge.
Either your Bank Guarantee is Issued or you Get your Deposit Returned, we make money closing deals NOT taking Deposits!
The level of transparency, access, protection and proof provided in this program is unique and is rarely offered in the Bank Guarantee industry
The entire End to End Proven Program includes BOTH Issuing a Bank Guarantee and Funding that Bank Guarantee. Everything has been prestructured, preapproved and prenegotiated so it is hassle and headache free with certain predetermed outcomes you can bank on.
We provide total contract protection with the BG Issuer and BG Funder agreeing to penalties up to 20 times your deposit! Full Non Recourse Funding in the program means you do not have to repay a cent! The Bank Guarantee is Issued from AAA Rated Top 25 Bank and funded from a second AAA Rated Top 25 Bank. Client Deposits are paid to Attorney Trust Account where Trust Attorney and Barrister has No Criminal History, No Criminal Record, No Criminal Convictions and is the Legal Counsel for Governments and major Corporations.
There is No Trading, No Leveraging, No Borrowing, No Currency Investing and we DO NOT require any Project Documentation.
All we need to issue program agreements to clients is this one Document to be Completed: Managed BG Program Client Enrollment Form which we will send upon your request.
A Comprehensive Managed Bank Guarantee Program Overview (18 Pages) explaining the exact processes, procedure of how your $350K Deposit results in 30 Million of Non Recourse Funding in 45 to 90 Days OR $500K Deposit results in 100 Million Non Recourse in 45 to 90 Days will also be sent upon request.
Others Talk, but DL Financial Delivers. If you are tired of brokers and scammers cheating you and telling you stories and no one ever delivering what they promised, maybe its time you became a customer of DL Financial Ltd.
MT799 RWA – BG Owner to Funder
DL Financial MT799 RWA BG Owner to Funder Message Text Template. When you want a Bank Guarantee Funded, Monetized, Discounted or to Sell a Bank Guarantee, we request the Bank Guarantee Owners Bank issue this MT799 RWA to the Funder.
Please contact us via email for the draft copy.
IMPORTANT: Read about our #1 Managed Bank Guarantee Program Here MUST READ!
DL Financial Ltd issues Real Bank Guarantees, real and genuine SBLC’s and completes Real Funding without long stories!
Others Talk, but DL Financial Delivers. If you are tired of brokers and scammers cheating you and telling you stories and no one ever delivering what they promised, maybe its time you became a customer of DL Financial Ltd.
Why we should ban killer robots NOW
Around the world, right now, several countries are developing autonomous weapons that use artificial intelligence to locate, track and destroy their targets. AI researcher Toby Walsh explains why that’s a problem.
Artificial intelligence is in the news a lot, and it’s safe to say that it’s not always benign. That’s why the United Nations is hosting a debate on offensive autonomous weapons — and that’s why thousands of my colleagues working in AI and robotics recently came together to sign an open letter calling for a ban on these so-called killer robots. Yet somehow, not everyone is on board with the idea that the world would be a better place with a ban in place. “Robots will be better at war than humans,” they say. “Let robot fight robot and keep humans out of it.” Yet these arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny. Here are the five main objections I hear to banning killer robots — and why they’re misguided.
Objection 1. Robots will be more effective than humans.
They’ll be more efficient for sure. They won’t need to sleep. They won’t need time to rest and recover. They won’t need long training programs. They won’t mind extreme cold or heat. All in all, they’ll make ideal soldiers. But they won’t be more effective. The recently leaked Drone Papers suggest nearly nine out of ten people killed by drone strikes weren’t the intended target. This is when there’s still a human in the loop, making the final life-or-death decision. The statistics will be much worse when we replace that human with a computer. Killer robots will also be more efficient at killing us. Terrorists and rogue nations are sure to use them against us. It’s clear if they’re not banned that there will be an arms race. It is not overblown to suggest that this will be the next great revolution in warfare after the invention of gunpowder and nuclear bombs. The history of warfare is largely one of who can more efficiently kill the other side. This has typically not been a good thing for mankind.
Objection 2. Robots will be more ethical.
In the terror of battle, humans have committed many atrocities. And robots can be built to follow precise rules. However, it’s fanciful to imagine we know how to build ethical robots. AI researchers like myself have only just started to worry about how you could program a robot to behave ethically. It will takes us many decades to work this out. And even when we do, there’s no computer we know that can’t be hacked to behave in ways that we don’t desire. Robots today cannot make the distinctions that the international rules of war require: to distinguish between combatant and civilian, to act proportionally, and so on. Robot warfare is likely to be a lot more unpleasant than the war we fight today.
Objection 3. Robots can just fight robots.
Replacing humans with robots in a dangerous place like the battlefield might seem like a good idea. However, it’s also fanciful to suppose that we could just have robots fight robots. There’s not some separate part of the world called “the battlefield.” Wars are now fought in our towns and cities, with unfortunate civilians caught in the crossfire. The world is sadly witnessing this today in Syria and elsewhere. Our opponents today are typically terrorists and rogue nations. They are not going to sign up to a contest between robots. Indeed, there’s an argument that the terror unleashed remotely by drones has likely aggravated the many conflicts in which we find ourselves today.
Objection 4. Such robots already exist and we need them.
I am perfectly happy to concede that technologies like the autonomous Phalanxanti-missile gun are a good thing. You don’t have time to get a human decision when defending yourself against an incoming supersonic missile. But the Phalanx is a defensive system. And my colleagues and I did not call for defensive systems to be banned. We only called for offensive autonomous systems to be banned. Like the Samsung sentry robot currently active in the DMZ between North and South Korea. This will kill any person who steps into the DMZ from four kilometers away with deadly accuracy. There’s no reason we can’t ban a weapon system that already exists.
Objection 5. Weapon bans don’t work.
History would contradict this argument. The 1998 UN Protocol on Blinding Lasersresulted in blinding lasers, designed to cause permanent blindness, being kept out of the battlefield. If you go to Syria today — or any of the other war zones of the world — you won’t find this weapon, and not a single arms company anywhere in the world will sell it to you. You can’t uninvent the technology that supports blinding lasers, but there’s enough stigma associated with them that arms companies have stayed away. I hope the same will be true of autonomous weapons. We won’t be able to uninvent the technology, but we can put enough stigma in place that robots aren’t weaponized. Even a partially effective ban would be likely worth having. Anti-personnel mines still exist today despite the 1997 Ottawa Treaty. But 40 million such mines have been destroyed. This has made the world a safer place and resulted in many fewer children losing their life or a limb.
AI and robotics can be used for many great purposes. Much the same technology will be needed in autonomous cars, which are predicted to save 30,000 deaths on the roads of the United States every year. It will make our roads, factories, mines and ports safer and more efficient. It will make our lives healthier, wealthier and happier. And in the military context, robots can be used to clear minefields, bring supplies in through dangerous routes, and shift mountains of signal intelligence. But they shouldn’t be used to kill.
DL Financial Ltd issues Real Bank Guarantees, real and genuine SBLC’s and completes Real Funding without long stories!
Others Talk, but DL Financial Delivers. If you are tired of brokers and scammers cheating you and telling you stories and no one ever delivering what they promised, maybe its time you became a customer of DL Financial Ltd.
MT799 Payment Guarantee – Funder to BG Owner
DL Financial MT799 Payment Guarantee – Funder to BG Owner Message Text Template.
We are the largest and most reliable providers of bank guarantees, sblc, dlc and letters of credit
Taiwanese banks to ramp up overseas expansion as regulation eases
Overseas investment limits were eased early this year from 40% of paid-in capital to 40% of net worth.
According to BMI Research, the Taiwanese banking sector is going through a series of reforms in 2015 that we believe will see local lenders branch out beyond the island’s borders over the coming years to further consolidate the market’s current surge in lending activity.
Here’s more from BMI:
Back in January, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), the domestic regulator, saw its proposed amendments to the Banking Act brought into law. The changes will see the streamlining of the overseas acquisitions process, by easing overseas investment limits from 40% of paid-in capital to 40% of net worth, along with the raising of the investment capital.
These two factors combined will serve to support the outward expansion of Taiwanese banks across the fast-growing market of the South East Asia region (most likely starting with China, where most leading Taiwanese banks already have branches).
Taiwan offers something different to a region undergoing a rapid growth in corporate hunger for capital. Indeed, one of the offshore resort’s key strengths is that it can offer an alternative liquidity pool for companies in the region, although we expect the lion’s share of firms to visit the island to raise funds to come from Mainland China.
More specifically, we expect the history of Taiwan’s capital markets serving the technology industry to appeal to the wave of Chinese tech firms, which may find it hard to raise capital at home. Going forward, this puts Taiwan in a position to potentially become a tech fundraising hub as it looks to embed itself in the broader region.
Analysts ‘bewildered’ about weak correlation of DBS’ NIMs to credit spreads
Weak NIMs despite a large pool of cheap deposits is also a concern.
Consensus believes that DBS’s NIMs will expand from higher interest rates, aided by low funding costs from its large CASA deposits (60% of total deposits). Maybank Kim Eng’s quantitative analysis validates this; in the scenario of a 50 bps increase in SIBOR and 50 bps wider credit spread, NIMs may expand by 8.7-11.9 bps. But DBS is not the largest beneficiary in this scenario.
“We are bewildered about the weak correlation of DBS’s NIMs to credit spreads. The structurally weaker NIMs compared to UOB’s, despite a large pool of cheap deposits, adds to the concern. While the margin outlook may be stable, the lending landscape is challenging,” adds Maybank Kim Eng.
Maybank Kim Eng adds that DBS has the biggest USD exposure among Singapore banks (USD loans comprise ~32% of total loans). It is also most vulnerable to a sharp drop in securities prices. “Our recent stress test concludes that DBS’s may be most severely impacted under our adverse stress test scenario.”
DL Financial Ltd. 