All_In 0 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7918129.stmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7918129.stmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking I am sure they miss out on tons of good opportunities when times are good.Do they let women have accounts in these banks? Probably not. Link to post Share on other sites
ahosang 0 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Yes absolutely, the West can learn something from Islamic banking.I'm no fan of the totality of Islam, but there are principles which we can learn from, and I think their avoidance of usury/excessive usury is most instructive. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Except America has the NSA moniter all transactions in Islamic banks and can 'divert' and funds they want whenever they want. Link to post Share on other sites
Naked_Cowboy 0 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Yes absolutely, the West can learn something from Islamic banking.I'm no fan of the totality of Islam, but there are principles which we can learn from, and I think their avoidance of usury/excessive usury is most instructive.I'm clearly missing something. How are banks suppossed to make money without charging interest on their loans? Link to post Share on other sites
All_In 0 Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 I'm clearly missing something. How are banks suppossed to make money without charging interest on their loans? http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jun/1....islamicfinancehttp://www.financeprofessor.com/islamicfin...c%20finance.htm Link to post Share on other sites
Naked_Cowboy 0 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jun/1....islamicfinancehttp://www.financeprofessor.com/islamicfin...c%20finance.htm The bank taking an equity position in someone's home sounds right up obamas alley. This is essentially cutting out the middle man in a bad market and making houses directly owned by the bank hurt the banks bottom line even faster than having to go through the process of reposessing it upon default and then selling it. It would also make it far less transparent how a bank is doing from a balance sheet perspective. You can prove out how your mortgage assets are doing through modeling and tracking how current the payors are. You cannot prove out the value of houses that have been on the books for a long time without a far more complex model. As the previous "simpler" mortgage models were extremely flawed and easy to manipulate, I can't imagine a scenario where someone could convince me you could assign a reasonable fair value to your equity position in a ton of houses. I'm only a real estate fund accountant though, so what do i know. Seriously though, surely I'm missing the upside to this besides banks being able to hide their crappy assets in a way that makes them look more stable. Link to post Share on other sites
All_In 0 Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 The bank taking an equity position in someone's home sounds right up obamas alley. This is essentially cutting out the middle man in a bad market and making houses directly owned by the bank hurt the banks bottom line even faster than having to go through the process of reposessing it upon default and then selling it. It would also make it far less transparent how a bank is doing from a balance sheet perspective. You can prove out how your mortgage assets are doing through modeling and tracking how current the payors are. You cannot prove out the value of houses that have been on the books for a long time without a far more complex model. As the previous "simpler" mortgage models were extremely flawed and easy to manipulate, I can't imagine a scenario where someone could convince me you could assign a reasonable fair value to your equity position in a ton of houses. I'm only a real estate fund accountant though, so what do i know. Seriously though, surely I'm missing the upside to this besides banks being able to hide their crappy assets in a way that makes them look more stable.i am not in the real estate business, so i defer to your expertise. but in the wiki article in the OP, it says, 'In order to protect itself against default, the bank asks for strict collateral.' Does this protect the banks?There is obv more info in the wiki page, maybe it will answer your questions? Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Yeah this is bizarre. I had an Islamic couple come into my office for some planning but they could not accept interest. I had no idea, I couldn't help them.Amana mutual funds own islamic companies, and they have done fairly well compared to the overall market, only down about 25%, compared to over 50. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Things like that work easily when your entire society must ascribe to certain religious precepts.In a free market, good old fashioned Jewish Banks are pretty much the most natural occurance. Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 How the hell can you purchase multiple burkas without at least some back interest colateral? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now