no, lindismith, i am with you here. the logic here is that only when the asset depreciates that you can/should give it back and let the bank deal with the mess. if the opposite occurred, (the bank took the asset after 50% appreciation) we would call that outright theft. but it seems to work the other way around with some. and spare me the bank is not your friend or the contract says this or that. please. the only time this seems to be the case is when you are subject to adverse affect of the potential risk that ALWAYS existed.
