[quote=paramount]I thought you’d like that high horse…
Anyway, here’s the deal and something I have learned recently.
First of all – home ownership is good for America. It’s what builds communities and identities. It’s good for the economy. It gives people and families something to strive for – and it’s worth striving for.
Allow me to relate (2) recent experiences:
1. In January I decided to look for a rental house in San Diego to be closer to work. In going through this process I (IMO) encountered some really unpleasant people in the property management business.
Experiences like that help one appreciate home ownership (even if you are renting it from the bank).
2. 10 years ago the community I live in was primarily owner occupied. Fast forward 10 years and now our community is primarily renter occupied and there is much less of a sense of community IMO. No more block parties, U-Haul trucks appearing weekly – very transient.[/quote]
Yup. Rental communities and owner communities have different characteristics. That doesn’t mean that we should try to turn folks who should be renting into owners. We tried a lot of that recently and it didn’t turn out well. Consequently, I’m not sure what your point is in the context of this discussion.
[quote=paramount]
We have to take calculated risks. For buyers with strong credit profiles, 10% down and good ratios I think that’s a risk worth taking given the benefit to the buyers and the community.[/quote]
Hold on a sec… if I go back to the archives under the discussions of strategic defaults am I not going to find you supporting such actions as a “business decision”? Clearly there isn’t much value in that “strong credit profile” if the value of the collateral declines. My point is that if there are no ethics involved – that is, the “Character” in the 3 C’s of credit is a quaint joke – then you’ll have to pardon me if I’d like a bit more than 10% downside protection on the Collateral. If you’re in the strategic-default-is-a-business-decision crowd, then your position here is more than a little hypocritical. Frankly, if it’s MY money at risk… 20% is the threshold to START a discussion. But perhaps that’s because I have my own principal at risk in ownership of small banks, so my mind is a bit more focused on the issue.
