Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan.
- This topic has 265 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 18, 2009 at 6:44 PM #434362July 18, 2009 at 6:46 PM #433615
analyst
Participant[quote=patientrenter]
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.[/quote]
Lenders were/are not pushed to do anything dangerous or likely to lead to losses.
They are required only to use realistic appraisal values, and maintain appropriate loan-to-value ratios. This is easy, boring, and the path to a reasonable profit, but not the path to riches.
That is why the charlatans who engineered the real estate bubble, and are responsible for all the damage that it caused, were not satisfied with the arrangement.
July 18, 2009 at 6:46 PM #433820Participant[quote=patientrenter]
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.[/quote]
Lenders were/are not pushed to do anything dangerous or likely to lead to losses.
They are required only to use realistic appraisal values, and maintain appropriate loan-to-value ratios. This is easy, boring, and the path to a reasonable profit, but not the path to riches.
That is why the charlatans who engineered the real estate bubble, and are responsible for all the damage that it caused, were not satisfied with the arrangement.
July 18, 2009 at 6:46 PM #434130Participant[quote=patientrenter]
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.[/quote]
Lenders were/are not pushed to do anything dangerous or likely to lead to losses.
They are required only to use realistic appraisal values, and maintain appropriate loan-to-value ratios. This is easy, boring, and the path to a reasonable profit, but not the path to riches.
That is why the charlatans who engineered the real estate bubble, and are responsible for all the damage that it caused, were not satisfied with the arrangement.
July 18, 2009 at 6:46 PM #434203Participant[quote=patientrenter]
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.[/quote]
Lenders were/are not pushed to do anything dangerous or likely to lead to losses.
They are required only to use realistic appraisal values, and maintain appropriate loan-to-value ratios. This is easy, boring, and the path to a reasonable profit, but not the path to riches.
That is why the charlatans who engineered the real estate bubble, and are responsible for all the damage that it caused, were not satisfied with the arrangement.
July 18, 2009 at 6:46 PM #434367Participant[quote=patientrenter]
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.[/quote]
Lenders were/are not pushed to do anything dangerous or likely to lead to losses.
They are required only to use realistic appraisal values, and maintain appropriate loan-to-value ratios. This is easy, boring, and the path to a reasonable profit, but not the path to riches.
That is why the charlatans who engineered the real estate bubble, and are responsible for all the damage that it caused, were not satisfied with the arrangement.
July 18, 2009 at 6:51 PM #433622patientrenter
Participantnsr, I don’t know the history of the non-recourse loan. I am interested, though. Can you describe it a bit more?
July 18, 2009 at 6:51 PM #433825Participantnsr, I don’t know the history of the non-recourse loan. I am interested, though. Can you describe it a bit more?
July 18, 2009 at 6:51 PM #434135Participantnsr, I don’t know the history of the non-recourse loan. I am interested, though. Can you describe it a bit more?
July 18, 2009 at 6:51 PM #434208Participantnsr, I don’t know the history of the non-recourse loan. I am interested, though. Can you describe it a bit more?
July 18, 2009 at 6:51 PM #434372Participantnsr, I don’t know the history of the non-recourse loan. I am interested, though. Can you describe it a bit more?
July 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM #433625NotCranky
Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
PR, Theoretically, even if banks are successful at getting permission from the federal government to take all the money they see, they won’t blow a bubble with a ponzi scheme in a non-recourse state and across the nation in order to take it. Lots of people should go to jail for creating a public nuisance if nothing else. I am not talking about the little fish who did take the fog a mirror get a loan policy the lenders aggressively and without duress promoted.
The idea that the banks or their enablers who are now fixing the problem deserve any empathy really rubs me the wrong way. Poor banky wanky. Not that I condone all of the of the particular things FB’s do but the banks get what the deserve. I mean, in theory they could.Possibly they could? Yeah right.
July 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM #433830Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
PR, Theoretically, even if banks are successful at getting permission from the federal government to take all the money they see, they won’t blow a bubble with a ponzi scheme in a non-recourse state and across the nation in order to take it. Lots of people should go to jail for creating a public nuisance if nothing else. I am not talking about the little fish who did take the fog a mirror get a loan policy the lenders aggressively and without duress promoted.
The idea that the banks or their enablers who are now fixing the problem deserve any empathy really rubs me the wrong way. Poor banky wanky. Not that I condone all of the of the particular things FB’s do but the banks get what the deserve. I mean, in theory they could.Possibly they could? Yeah right.
July 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM #434140Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
PR, Theoretically, even if banks are successful at getting permission from the federal government to take all the money they see, they won’t blow a bubble with a ponzi scheme in a non-recourse state and across the nation in order to take it. Lots of people should go to jail for creating a public nuisance if nothing else. I am not talking about the little fish who did take the fog a mirror get a loan policy the lenders aggressively and without duress promoted.
The idea that the banks or their enablers who are now fixing the problem deserve any empathy really rubs me the wrong way. Poor banky wanky. Not that I condone all of the of the particular things FB’s do but the banks get what the deserve. I mean, in theory they could.Possibly they could? Yeah right.
July 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM #434212Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
PR, Theoretically, even if banks are successful at getting permission from the federal government to take all the money they see, they won’t blow a bubble with a ponzi scheme in a non-recourse state and across the nation in order to take it. Lots of people should go to jail for creating a public nuisance if nothing else. I am not talking about the little fish who did take the fog a mirror get a loan policy the lenders aggressively and without duress promoted.
The idea that the banks or their enablers who are now fixing the problem deserve any empathy really rubs me the wrong way. Poor banky wanky. Not that I condone all of the of the particular things FB’s do but the banks get what the deserve. I mean, in theory they could.Possibly they could? Yeah right.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.