Please don't do this. It adds no information and the site guidelines explicitly ask you not to, as you'll see if you read them to the end: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. It also guarantees further downvotes, and this time they'll be correct because you broke the rules.
You shouldn't be downvoted. The observation is correct.
In a collateralized loan, the borrower owns the collateral. In a repo, the borrower does not. This is one reason why companies finance capital equipment with secured loans, not repos.
A repo also involves two collateral purchase-and-sale transactions; a collateralized loan involves zero. This restricts it to highly liquid assets, where everyone agrees on prices and settlement is fast and cheap. In practice, this almost exclusively means Treasuries.
I was handwaving when I said they're the same transaction. They're symmetrical, cash-flow wise. But you can't replace secured loans with repos or vice versa. Repos are secured borrowing with minimal counterparty risk. Secured loans are secured borrowing with broad asset coverage.
> a classical collateral secured transaction is fundamentally different than a repo
Not fundamentally. Just different. (I'd also note that the "classic" collateralized transaction is a spherical cow.)
Lender leasing the collateral to the borrower makes a repo functionally identical to a secured loan. Lenders requiring ring-fenced collateral (e.g. in a cash-backed loan) are repos with extra steps. This symmetry belies their fundamental similarity.
There are legal differences in edge cases. But fundamentally, they're both collateralized borrowing.
Off the top of my head, you give up on any cashflows, such as dividends/interest from the security and maybe also some anciliary rights, such as voting rights or whatever rights bondholders get.
However, you account for forgone cashflows by adjusting the repurchase price accordingly. As for the rights, you can recall the repo (it's usually done overnight).
I'd say that represents a very different transaction Still depending on where or not an important vote is coming up in the meantime, and who you are selling your voting stake to.
Actually, it isn't. The financial aspect might be equivalent, but look beyond the purely financial characteristics from your phrasing and you also relinquish any utility you'd have gotten out of the monitor in that time. Depending on number of monitors you have and other circumstances, that lends the transaction a very different character from the first.
EDIT: Downvotes without substantive replies or explations do nothing to further overall discourse.
I stand by my assertion that a classical collateral secured transaction is fundamentally different than a repo as described.
I'm open to having my mind changed. Just be aware, I don't look at transactions of value as only being financial in their entirety unless explicitly set out. Other forms of circumstantial value can and do emerge.