SD, I meant no offense. All I am saying is, from a legal standpoint at least, the responsibility for the bad line of code has been placed in the hands of the lender. So I don’t think it’s fair to impose perceived moral or ethical obligations upon people that did not assume them in the first instance.

If we want to change the nature of home loans in the future, that is a proposition I haven’t fully considered, although I’m not really sure that $50,000 income Joe with the $600,000 loan would really have cared if the loan was recourse or nonrecourse because he presumably has no assets. Sensible Sheila, who can afford the loan, would obviously have cared, but isn’t our current state of affairs more the result of the Joes, and not the Sheilas? And is it really too much to ask that lenders get a clue before they start throwing their money around in the expectation of repayment?