if the bank had security in his home then by all means take it. If not this is still a country of laws (more or less). maybe when they gave the loan, they were convinced that the company's assets and revenues were more than sufficient and they got a higher interest rate without taking security. WHo knows. These are all legitimate business decisions. Banks are also businesses for profit and to make a profit you take some risk. The more risk the more profit. When you were making high returns no one said "hey get lower returns and more security just in case in the future your risk manifests itself". Only after the fact everyone wants to win both ways. High returns for taking risk and then when it goes bad on them they want to put the risk back on the other guy. That is not how business works (unless you are a populist socialist society in which case no one will invest in you in the first place and you will have nothing to argue about later).
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Death toll in Syrian war is 470,000, The Guardian reports (Reuters)
from the article: The perfect banker who made the people loathe Bank Leumi