[quote=zk]
First of all, most loans are paid back regardless of any moral component. They’re paid back because the consequences of not paying outweigh the consequences of paying. I’d say precious few loans are made where the lender is counting on the moral standards of the borrower.
[/quote]

I agree with your first and second sentences above. Your last sentence is clearly written from the perspective of someone who has never sat on the loan committee of a bank. Yes, you require collateral and cashflow as the fundamental basis for the loan. But if you think that the “character” of the borrower (as explained in court by JP Morgan back in the 1930s) isn’t a big issue, you’re mistaken. (Although, admittedly, the character issue is much more important at the community bank level than at the national bank level.)

[quote=zk]
What changed over the last 7 years
wasn’t moral standards, it was lending standards. If you have adequate lending standards, there will be plenty of loans made and enough of them will be paid back that we won’t end up in a mess like the one we’re in.[/quote]

I will agree with you that it was lending standards that changed MORE than moral standards (among the pool of total borrowers). Lending standards really went into the shitter and I agree that that is indeed the crux of the problem. But it’s pretty clear to me that moral standards have changed too. Although, one could argue that the lax lending standards allowed a large group of folks into the borrowing pool that never should have been there in the first place and gave them every incentive to act in an immoral manner.

Having said all that, I’m clearly biased about this “character” issue because I deal with it all the time. Bank of America, et al, however, probably don’t give it much thought as a result of how their business is run.