Commercial Lending BusinessBusiness lending business
" Under the NCUA Auditor's Guide, a general "commercial loan" is "any loans, lines of credit or letters of credit granted (including unsecured obligations) to an individual, firm, business entity, society, corporation or other business entity for commercial, industry, agriculture or business purpose (but not for the purpose of personally paying expenses).
These include all interest that a cooperative receives on a commercial advance granted by another creditor (e.g. a participation)...", while advances that are "recognised as member company advances must be designated as such and kept within the legal limits of the Federal Law on the Cooperative Credit Association. "In order to remove some of the confusions arising from this differentiation, the NCUA Auditor's Guide actually contains a chart which lists the categories of lending and clarifies whether they come under the definitions of a member firm or a commercial lending.
Allow me to say that - which adds to the mix - "MBL" is often seen in terms of short form in news items and publications both for the Member Business Lending and Commercial Lending rules and for a legally mandated Member Business Loan. "Nevertheless, we are discussing two different things (although the Member Business Lending and Commercial Lending rules control Member Business Loans).
OK, so under certain conditions cooperatives now have more freedom in deciding whether to demand individual guarantee. However, when was it a poor suggestion to get individual warranties (yes, we have been told that the demand for warranties may have a cooling effect)?
All of us know that if your debtor is a GmbH or a corporate body whose outside asset values have a finite winding-up value, a guaranty from the proprietor can offer crucial safeguards and leveraging in the event of a problem. What poses a continuing problem in relation to individual guarantees: spouse guaranties.
To begin with, it is easy to understand why every creditor wants a spouse's guarantee: Often when the creditor has a guaranty only from the landlord (and not from the owner's spouse) and "things go down", what turns out to be the owner's / guarantor's biggest individual fortune - the landlord's domicile - is out of the lender's grasp because that fortune is shared by a non-guarantor.
"7 "7] Apart from the fact that the commercial meaning of Reg B was extended to the commercial environment when it was initially meant for the consumers environment, it is clear why many, even the auditors, understand Reg B as being "creditworthy" when an claimant (including the proprietor or surety of an entities creditor in a commercial credit transaction) is an individual, the creditor should not also pay attention to the claimant marriage partner/owner or surety for a marriage bond.
However, if a creditor takes action and demands a marriage guaranty as a precondition for a credit, if the owner/guarantor is already worthy of the credit (and the married partner is not a co-owner of the entity/borrower), and the creditor then defaults and takes the spouse/guarantor to court together with the entity/borrower and the owner/guarantor, the creditor may well consider a spouse/guarantor claim for an ECO breach.
This means that in the other 12 jurisdictions, cooperative banks and other creditors must remain vigilant in their policy on the question of marriageguarantee. NCUA's new rules for member firms and commercial lending give cooperatives greater flexibility in deciding whether to demand individual guarantee for corporate lending.
However, we all know that in general face-to-face warranties offer additional safeguards and leveraging, and cooperative banks should keep looking for face-to-face warranties when granting corporate lending to entities. In other words, unless your cooperative bank operates in the seven states that comprise the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and grants credits, you still need to be cautious when it comes to checking the adequacy of a spouse bond for a particular business credit.
There has been no change in the due diligence procedure that would assist the defence of a spouse warranty in certain situations.