From our prior post we talked about why in-ground assets aren't pertinent to private banking programs. The reason why we are speaking about this is there are a lot who "claim" to be well placed to have a private banking program which should place the monetized asset into a banking program.
One of the features of in-ground assets has the power to "predict" how much is under the ground. Again, this would be a prophecy and not a factual statement, which leads us to private banking programs which are based mostly on factual money information which is obvious in an once a month bank account statement. How would somebody trade on a prophecy? They would not.
The other feature we wish to recap is getting an insurance firm to "wrap" the asset. How is the insurer, to supply the wrap, going to give the owner a policy based mostly on a prophecy? They are not. Here is where in principle is sounds great, but in fact it does not work. There's not an insurance firm which will give the owner a policy, or "wrap", on an envisioned asset.
Nevertheless on occasions if there's available true assets, e.g. the volume of gold, etc, exiting the mine, then and if, the owner is pleased to pay for the "insurance wrap", then yes, naturally, the insurer would be content to wrap the asset into a policy. This naturally, would cost millions of dollars for the owner and now the very next step "if" the owner of the gold mine has gotten this far, is to have the "wrap" or policy monetized into money. How troublesome do you believe that is? Stay informed, and we'll explain the unvarnished reality of monetizing an insurance wrap.
0 comments:
Post a Comment