Now to my question. If you "vouch" for someone that they are trustworthy and they take a loan, is the person who vouched putting their reputation on the line? If you didn't trust a person to repay, why would you "vouch" for them?
Here a conclusion can be drawn.
Guarantee, Reputation is at stake and don't believe it.
Here there are three different understandings, Guarantee which I know is responsible for the user concerned financially that is the basic point, if the person concerned does not keep the promise, Of course the guarantor is responsible for everything, which is certain that he has staked his reputation on the user.
Now you don't believe it, why is he guaranteeing it? In fact, this point of view, if interpreted broadly, can be viewed from pity, consideration and remembering, here tolerance is born between people, not the basis for believing it, That's where it appears again and applies to guarantors considering the value or property, in other words, the guarantor looks at and carefully examines the limits of the user's loan history, In other words, the guarantor's issuance does not exceed the risk to the guarantor and the guarantor may also hope for the agreed reward, for this reason, if the right occurs, the guarantor does not look at it from the perspective of trusting it, but from the perspective of the reward from the guaranteed user in the future.
The same as guaranteeing, but there is a reward agreed to the user concerned, not a basis for trust.