How to INDEPENDENTLY establish value of poker chips or a chip collection? (1 Viewer)

Establishing a value in chips to prove that you aren’t laundering money via PP - interesting and frustrating situation. Would never have guessed this was something to consider. This is obviously a big enough issue to have a “laundering detector” written into their code. Crazy.
 
Though I do get @Seeking Alpha Social Club 's point too. What do they care where the money came from? You can't tell me the underwriter is concerned about that. All they care about is their bosses not getting ripped off and assuring the funds used to make a down payment are legitimate, and that the borrowers have good credit and a steady income to assure they continue to get their money.
Things seem to have derailed a bit solely focusing on the laundering side of things.

Take this situation:

I plan to put 100k down on a 500k house, leaving me with a 400k loan. Based on my income and other debts though, the lender is only comfortable loaning me 350k. I’m screwed. But wait, my Great Aunt Hilda has money and is always looking for a guaranteed return. I promise her 4% paid monthly if she loans me 50k and she agrees.

Boom! I now can put 150k down, and borrow the 350k the lender was comfortable with. If the lender doesn’t dig into that new 50k that recently appeared in my account, and prove to themselves that it doesn’t come with a repayment plan though, they stand to be lending to someone they don’t feel can cover all outstanding obligations along with this new loan.

Not a direct tie to the chips but their processes are in place for reasons that are different than the processes in place at banks. Along with AML regulations, they want to be comfortable that the borrower can pay back the new loan.

Let’s go back to my Great Aunt Hilda for a second. I can make it seem less suspicious if I say she’s always loved these little clay discs I own and since she’s old, I finally caved and sold them to her. Hmm…ok, but little clay disks can’t really be worth 50k though, so this smells fishy. If I can prove they’re worth 50k, the underwriter can believe it’s not likely the money needs to be repaid. But if the best I can do is prove they’re really worth 50 dollars, the underwriter is back to wondering if I’m going to be repaying her alongside their loan.

What the underwriter accepts as ‘proof’ is up to them, not any of us. They’re the ones that have to be comfortable I’m not an excessive risk.

Help at all?
 
Things seem to have derailed a bit solely focusing on the laundering side of things.

In hindsight I probably should have never even mentioned "laundering." The deposit was merely flagged by the underwriter's risk algorithm... and laundering is just one of a litany of concerns they have in these scenarios. The concealment of an additional loan/gift (as you described) being the most common/practical concern of all of them.
 
In hindsight I probably should have never even mentioned "laundering." The deposit was merely flagged by the underwriter's risk algorithm... and laundering is just one of a litany of concerns they have in these scenarios. The concealment of an additional loan/gift (as you described) being the most common/practical concern of all of them.
It still totally sucks that you had to deal with this but I’ll echo those who thanked you for bringing it up here. It’s a valuable lesson for others.
 
It still totally sucks that you had to deal with this but I’ll echo those who thanked you for bringing it up here. It’s a valuable lesson for others.
It ended up not being a deal-breaker, and we were ultimately able to figure everything out to close.

The lesson here is... settle up all large transactions at least 90-days before you plan to close on a property. That way it should be well outside the financial history they normally need to see.
 
Things seem to have derailed a bit solely focusing on the laundering side of things.

Take this situation:

I plan to put 100k down on a 500k house, leaving me with a 400k loan. Based on my income and other debts though, the lender is only comfortable loaning me 350k. I’m screwed. But wait, my Great Aunt Hilda has money and is always looking for a guaranteed return. I promise her 4% paid monthly if she loans me 50k and she agrees.

Boom! I now can put 150k down, and borrow the 350k the lender was comfortable with. If the lender doesn’t dig into that new 50k that recently appeared in my account, and prove to themselves that it doesn’t come with a repayment plan though, they stand to be lending to someone they don’t feel can cover all outstanding obligations along with this new loan.

Not a direct tie to the chips but their processes are in place for reasons that are different than the processes in place at banks. Along with AML regulations, they want to be comfortable that the borrower can pay back the new loan.

Let’s go back to my Great Aunt Hilda for a second. I can make it seem less suspicious if I say she’s always loved these little clay discs I own and since she’s old, I finally caved and sold them to her. Hmm…ok, but little clay disks can’t really be worth 50k though, so this smells fishy. If I can prove they’re worth 50k, the underwriter can believe it’s not likely the money needs to be repaid. But if the best I can do is prove they’re really worth 50 dollars, the underwriter is back to wondering if I’m going to be repaying her alongside their loan.

What the underwriter accepts as ‘proof’ is up to them, not any of us. They’re the ones that have to be comfortable I’m not an excessive risk.

Help at all?
replace Aunt Hilda with my Mother and the story of buying my first house was pretty much summed up in total right there.....guess I defrauded the bank for my own home.....my return interest rate was zero however, shame on aunt Hilda crimping family.
 
It ended up not being a deal-breaker, and we were ultimately able to figure everything out to close.

The lesson here is... settle up all large transactions at least 90-days before you plan to close on a property. That way it should be well outside the financial history they normally need to see.
That alone tells you this entire process sucks though The only thing a malicious party has to do is to schedule the "additional loan/gift" 91 days in advance, and this entire defense mechanism is defeated.

I mean I get it, if you can thwart even a few morons trying to get a bigger loan than they can handle, then the process is technically worth it for the bank. But given how easy it is to bypass this security feature they should be allowing room for common sense and judgment calls into the process. But as is standard, rules get made, and the original spirit and intent of the rules are lost among those who actually enforce them.
 
Things seem to have derailed a bit solely focusing on the laundering side of things.

Take this situation:

I plan to put 100k down on a 500k house, leaving me with a 400k loan. Based on my income and other debts though, the lender is only comfortable loaning me 350k. I’m screwed. But wait, my Great Aunt Hilda has money and is always looking for a guaranteed return. I promise her 4% paid monthly if she loans me 50k and she agrees.

Boom! I now can put 150k down, and borrow the 350k the lender was comfortable with. If the lender doesn’t dig into that new 50k that recently appeared in my account, and prove to themselves that it doesn’t come with a repayment plan though, they stand to be lending to someone they don’t feel can cover all outstanding obligations along with this new loan.

Not a direct tie to the chips but their processes are in place for reasons that are different than the processes in place at banks. Along with AML regulations, they want to be comfortable that the borrower can pay back the new loan.

Let’s go back to my Great Aunt Hilda for a second. I can make it seem less suspicious if I say she’s always loved these little clay discs I own and since she’s old, I finally caved and sold them to her. Hmm…ok, but little clay disks can’t really be worth 50k though, so this smells fishy. If I can prove they’re worth 50k, the underwriter can believe it’s not likely the money needs to be repaid. But if the best I can do is prove they’re really worth 50 dollars, the underwriter is back to wondering if I’m going to be repaying her alongside their loan.

What the underwriter accepts as ‘proof’ is up to them, not any of us. They’re the ones that have to be comfortable I’m not an excessive risk.

Help at all?
Yes - this is correct, totally agree. It’s a combination of all of those factors.

Additionally, and this is a key factor - There are specific underwriting criteria and standards set forth by the secondary market. The lender is simply following those to ensure the loan meets the criteria for purchase.

The lesson here is... settle up all large transactions at least 90-days before you plan to close on a property. That way it should be well outside the financial history they normally need to see.

Yes - 100%. TBH - I am not sure you would have had a different experience had you tried another lender given the circumstances. They are all pretty much following the same standards. (If they want to sell the loan)
It was a really good example to share for sure!
 
A few would be: Chip Rack Twenty, Spinettis, past auction house auctions, eBay past auction prices...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom