n3 The superior court made much of the fact that the property was worth more than the consideration paid by Yasuda. Although "inequality between the worth of the property and the consideration . . . is a 'strong circumstance' tending to show that the deed was intended to operate as a mortgage," Beeler, 147 P.2d at 592, it is not dispositive. Hakubotan was a fully competent, sophisticated real estate concern, and it retained the power to sell the property during the loan extension period. Hakubotan may have made some misjudgments about its ability to repay the loan or about the value of the mortgaged property, but at the time the parties executed the agreement -- which was aggressively sought by Hakubotan -- the arrangement was not unfair or inequitable. [Citation Omitted.]