They have expenses to go with tracking it down, repossessing it, storing it and selling it. It's a pain in the arse in most cases. If they know where the ship is, can retrieve it rather cheaply and know for certain they can turn around and immediately sell it, then they are more apt to repossess it. Otherwise, it's a major issue.dayriff said:kristof65 said:True enough, but banks would rather not have to repossess or skip trace the ships in the first place, if they don't have to.
I wonder if that's really true. A ship is a pretty valuable commodity. If the bank repossesses it, they get to keep everything you'd paid so far and put it up for resale at full price.
Now, there are surely predatory lenders out there who will act that way, but as a general rule, most banks will simply want the monthly payment.
100 yr increments seems a bit extreme to me, but I admit that 20, or even 50 yr increments sounds appealing to me. YMMV, though.Mmm. And I'm considering an alteration to the "older ships" rule where it goes in one hundred year increments rather than ten year increments. I like the idea that ships are made to last and that you might pick up a ship with hundreds of years of history behind it.