Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan.

[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]I cant believe this is even a discussion topic. It’s business, get over it. Be glad it’s non-recourse.[/quote]

Just when it’s dying down, someone raises the red flag!

There are several reasons why it’s a discussion topic.

1. Lenders didn’t choose to make these loans non-recourse. California lawmakers made that choice. That makes us all (indirectly) responsible for the loan forgiveness.

2. Most of the losses caused by a failure to repay loans against homes are borne by taxpayers. Most of the rest will be borne by net savers as low interest rates now and future inflation depress their net worth. A considerable amount will also be borne by pensioners and others whose income relies on investments that pay good interest, and are repaid in full.

3. “Be glad”. I’d be glad only if I thought that taking money from one person, without their agreement, and giving it to another was OK.

4. Not everyone subscribes to the “if it’s legal, it’s OK” theory of social behavior. I wouldn’t want to do business with that kind of person.

[NotCranky]

1. Lenders didn’t choose to make these loans non-recourse. California lawmakers made that choice. That makes us all (indirectly) responsible for the loan forgiveness.

They were originated as non-recourse purchase money loans right? The law existed before the contract, correct?

[NotCranky]

1. Lenders didn’t choose to make these loans non-recourse. California lawmakers made that choice. That makes us all (indirectly) responsible for the loan forgiveness.

They were originated as non-recourse purchase money loans right? The law existed before the contract, correct?

[NotCranky]

1. Lenders didn’t choose to make these loans non-recourse. California lawmakers made that choice. That makes us all (indirectly) responsible for the loan forgiveness.

They were originated as non-recourse purchase money loans right? The law existed before the contract, correct?

[NotCranky]

1. Lenders didn’t choose to make these loans non-recourse. California lawmakers made that choice. That makes us all (indirectly) responsible for the loan forgiveness.

They were originated as non-recourse purchase money loans right? The law existed before the contract, correct?

[NotCranky]

1. Lenders didn’t choose to make these loans non-recourse. California lawmakers made that choice. That makes us all (indirectly) responsible for the loan forgiveness.

They were originated as non-recourse purchase money loans right? The law existed before the contract, correct?

[patientrenter]

1. If a law is made that says that anyone whose blog handle is Russell, formerly Rustico, can take all the cash he sees, does that mean you would do it?

2. We are, collectively, responsible for the laws. Our lawmakers answer to us. We may be in a permanent minority, or disagree with the laws sometimes, but it’s our society and our laws. If we make laws that lead to unfair or bad results, we have a collective responsibility for the outcomes, and a personal responsibility to wake up and do what we can to change those laws.

3. Lenders have lots of responsibility in this, but if a law is passed that prevents any loan from being recourse, then it pushes lenders into doing things that are dangerous and likely to lead to losses. Theoretically, lenders can simply close up shop if they disagree with non-recourse loans, but we all know that most won’t, even if it’s the right thing. You can push people, and even banks, into doing thing they wouldn’t otherwise do. If you do push, you are also responsible.

[patientrenter]

1. If a law is made that says that anyone whose blog handle is Russell, formerly Rustico, can take all the cash he sees, does that mean you would do it?

2. We are, collectively, responsible for the laws. Our lawmakers answer to us. We may be in a permanent minority, or disagree with the laws sometimes, but it’s our society and our laws. If we make laws that lead to unfair or bad results, we have a collective responsibility for the outcomes, and a personal responsibility to wake up and do what we can to change those laws.

3. Lenders have lots of responsibility in this, but if a law is passed that prevents any loan from being recourse, then it pushes lenders into doing things that are dangerous and likely to lead to losses. Theoretically, lenders can simply close up shop if they disagree with non-recourse loans, but we all know that most won’t, even if it’s the right thing. You can push people, and even banks, into doing thing they wouldn’t otherwise do. If you do push, you are also responsible.

[patientrenter]

1. If a law is made that says that anyone whose blog handle is Russell, formerly Rustico, can take all the cash he sees, does that mean you would do it?

2. We are, collectively, responsible for the laws. Our lawmakers answer to us. We may be in a permanent minority, or disagree with the laws sometimes, but it’s our society and our laws. If we make laws that lead to unfair or bad results, we have a collective responsibility for the outcomes, and a personal responsibility to wake up and do what we can to change those laws.

3. Lenders have lots of responsibility in this, but if a law is passed that prevents any loan from being recourse, then it pushes lenders into doing things that are dangerous and likely to lead to losses. Theoretically, lenders can simply close up shop if they disagree with non-recourse loans, but we all know that most won’t, even if it’s the right thing. You can push people, and even banks, into doing thing they wouldn’t otherwise do. If you do push, you are also responsible.

[patientrenter]

1. If a law is made that says that anyone whose blog handle is Russell, formerly Rustico, can take all the cash he sees, does that mean you would do it?

2. We are, collectively, responsible for the laws. Our lawmakers answer to us. We may be in a permanent minority, or disagree with the laws sometimes, but it’s our society and our laws. If we make laws that lead to unfair or bad results, we have a collective responsibility for the outcomes, and a personal responsibility to wake up and do what we can to change those laws.

3. Lenders have lots of responsibility in this, but if a law is passed that prevents any loan from being recourse, then it pushes lenders into doing things that are dangerous and likely to lead to losses. Theoretically, lenders can simply close up shop if they disagree with non-recourse loans, but we all know that most won’t, even if it’s the right thing. You can push people, and even banks, into doing thing they wouldn’t otherwise do. If you do push, you are also responsible.

[patientrenter]

1. If a law is made that says that anyone whose blog handle is Russell, formerly Rustico, can take all the cash he sees, does that mean you would do it?

2. We are, collectively, responsible for the laws. Our lawmakers answer to us. We may be in a permanent minority, or disagree with the laws sometimes, but it’s our society and our laws. If we make laws that lead to unfair or bad results, we have a collective responsibility for the outcomes, and a personal responsibility to wake up and do what we can to change those laws.

3. Lenders have lots of responsibility in this, but if a law is passed that prevents any loan from being recourse, then it pushes lenders into doing things that are dangerous and likely to lead to losses. Theoretically, lenders can simply close up shop if they disagree with non-recourse loans, but we all know that most won’t, even if it’s the right thing. You can push people, and even banks, into doing thing they wouldn’t otherwise do. If you do push, you are also responsible.

[no_such_reality]

What a crock of shit.

The non-recourse loan was never intended as a one way get out of a debt clause. It was intended as a method to keep misfortune from haunting someone forever.

Frankly, I wish the banks would pursue every single homedebtor with a recourse loan. Let them declare bankruptcy because that’s exactly what they are forcing on the banks and taxpayers.

[no_such_reality]

What a crock of shit.

The non-recourse loan was never intended as a one way get out of a debt clause. It was intended as a method to keep misfortune from haunting someone forever.

Frankly, I wish the banks would pursue every single homedebtor with a recourse loan. Let them declare bankruptcy because that’s exactly what they are forcing on the banks and taxpayers.

[no_such_reality]

What a crock of shit.

The non-recourse loan was never intended as a one way get out of a debt clause. It was intended as a method to keep misfortune from haunting someone forever.

Frankly, I wish the banks would pursue every single homedebtor with a recourse loan. Let them declare bankruptcy because that’s exactly what they are forcing on the banks and taxpayers.

[no_such_reality]

What a crock of shit.

The non-recourse loan was never intended as a one way get out of a debt clause. It was intended as a method to keep misfortune from haunting someone forever.

Frankly, I wish the banks would pursue every single homedebtor with a recourse loan. Let them declare bankruptcy because that’s exactly what they are forcing on the banks and taxpayers.

[Author]

Posts