Many people have heard that it is the borrower's right to apply for early repayment after the bank gets the loan, but it must obtain the consent of the bank and abide by the relevant regulations of the bank. So can banks ask borrowers to repay their loans in advance? This sounds unreasonable at first sight. Now that the money has been lent out and the contract has been signed, why should we take it back in advance? As the lender of the loan, the bank is the maker of the rules of the game, but it has the right to recover the loan in advance only under three circumstances, which is clearly stipulated in this loan contract. This means that borrowers who get loans should maintain a strong contractual spirit so as not to let the loans they get fly away. Let's take a look at the provisions of the loan contract about the bank's early recovery of the loan. In the loan contract, there are often such clauses: If Party A (the borrower) does not cooperate or refuses to accept the supervision of Party B (the lender) on its use of the loan and related production, operation and financial activities, Party B will correct it within 7 days after the notice and take remedial measures satisfactory to Party B, otherwise Party B has the right to recover part or even all of the loan in advance; If it cannot be recovered, the liquidated damages shall be collected on a daily basis according to the expected annualized interest rate of overdue loans. Obviously, the word "sword" refers to two kinds of people, one is the borrower who fails to submit the use invoice according to the agreement after the loan, and the other is the enterprise who is unwilling or unable to cooperate with the bank's inspection and can't provide the financial information required by the bank, such as operating flow, tax bills, periodic statements and so on. The inaction of the former makes banks worry about the flow of funds; The latter's non-cooperation makes banks worry about the company's performance. In a word, these bad signs only send a signal to banks that judge the situation: cut the gordian knot, recover the loan in advance, and avoid the potential capital risk from expanding. At the same time, for the borrower whose mortgage was seized by the court because of a lawsuit, but his house leaked overnight, the bank will launch a new lawsuit because the mortgage lost its liquidity after hearing the news, and order the borrower to lift the judicial seizure within a specified time limit or provide another equivalent mortgage, otherwise it has the right to recover the loan in advance according to the contract. In short, after the loan is in place, the borrower must not step on the three minefields of "no invoice, no cooperation in inspection and seizure of collateral", otherwise it will be not fun for the bank to repay the loan in advance in a rage.