Considering how banking works ([url=http://www.veoh.com/collection/AntiBrainwashTV/watch/v14150141bTh8CcWX]watch video[/url])... and that they need REAL CASH deposits so that they can create loans at around 10 to 1 ratio for their deposits, wouldn't it make sense that CASH is of higher value to the banks than inter-banking funny money credits?

Does it work like that with mortgages? Does anyone know how it truly works at the banking level with an all cash purchase vs. a financed purchase?

My assumption is for example, that a [i]financed purchase[/i] of a $200,000 property from "Bank-A" using financed money from "Bank-B" (which Bank-B created the lent money from their ~10:1 allowed ratio of loans to cash reserves) would only allow "Bank-A" to decrease their LOAN SIDE of that ratio, but not increase the cash side, since they did not receive any real cash.

If that is true, then a cash purchase should be of significantly higher value to the bank that owns the property.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about here?

Not the right forum for this question, but I'll give you a quick answer here...

Although the purchase may be made with lender financing, "Bank-B" is sending real money, usually in the form of a wire transfer to "Bank-A". I'm not sure where you got this notion of "funny money credits". The funds transferred in the sale are as good as cash.

However, a seller may have more incentive to accept an all cash offer, especially if they've been burned in the past by a different buyer's offer falling through due to financing difficulty. An all cash offer with proof of funds available usually means a motivated and capable buyer. That said, a seller will sometimes be more willing to negotiate price or terms with an all cash buyer (especially in a buyer's market such as ours today).