Which of the following factors is NOT considered when determining if a transfer serves only as security for an obligation?

The determination of whether a transfer serves solely as security for an obligation involves assessing the nature and intent behind the transfer, as well as the relationship between the parties involved. The grantor’s debt or promise of payment directly relates to the underlying obligation and helps establish whether the transfer functions as security for that debt. Similarly, the value of the property is crucial because it assesses whether the security being given is adequate in relation to the obligation owed.

The parties' prior negotiations also play a significant role as they can reveal the intent of the parties at the time of the transfer. For example, communications and agreements made before the transfer can demonstrate whether both parties viewed the transfer as merely a security arrangement.

In contrast, the financial status of the grantee does not directly inform whether the transfer is simply a security for an obligation. While the financial condition of the grantee might impact other considerations - such as their ability to repay a loan if the transfer was a sale rather than a security transfer - it does not particularly indicate the intent behind the transfer itself, which is the crux of determining whether a transfer qualifies as security. Therefore, it stands apart from the other factors that directly pertain to the evaluation of the transfer's purpose and intent.