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 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM #433949July 17, 2009 at 11:06 PM #433210
analyst
Participant[quote=patientrenter]I acknowledge that there are valid points to be made on both sides of this argument.
But I am ticked off by people pretending that there isn’t often a selfish motive when arguments are made that it’s OK to walk away from repaying your debts. Let’s face it, not many of us think of ourselves as investors who loaned large amounts of our own personal money to people overpaying for homes, and might lose a $1 of our own money for each $1 that’s not repaid. But lots of us are, or plan to be, homeowners. As homeowners, it would be nice if we could avoid repaying our mortgage, and feel no pangs of conscience or the pain of social opprobrium. We may never have done it, and we may not have an opportunity to do it now, but we wouldn’t mind having the option to do it in the future. “It’s OK if I steal a little, isn’t it”. My answer is No.[/quote]
Being selfish, by itself, is neither illegal nor unethical.
Recall that this discussion is about non-recourse loans, whose entire proceeds went to the purchase of the homes. No part of the money went to the borrowers.
What is it that is being stolen?
The borrowers are not holding any of the lender-provided money.
The lenders, who were given clear notice not to lend more than the house is actually worth, can take back the house at any time. The fact that the lenders have agreed to a deal that precludes them from doing so is nobody’s fault but their own.
The borrowers will ultimately be returned to their beginning positions, without homes and without loan proceeds, and will have lost any money that they put in along the way.
Any free rent benefit that the borrowers receive should be viewed in the same way as punitive damage awards – money that the law awards to parties who don’t “deserve” it, in order to penalize other parties who are responsible for harm caused by their intentional acts or negligence.
July 17, 2009 at 11:06 PM #433416Participant[quote=patientrenter]I acknowledge that there are valid points to be made on both sides of this argument.
But I am ticked off by people pretending that there isn’t often a selfish motive when arguments are made that it’s OK to walk away from repaying your debts. Let’s face it, not many of us think of ourselves as investors who loaned large amounts of our own personal money to people overpaying for homes, and might lose a $1 of our own money for each $1 that’s not repaid. But lots of us are, or plan to be, homeowners. As homeowners, it would be nice if we could avoid repaying our mortgage, and feel no pangs of conscience or the pain of social opprobrium. We may never have done it, and we may not have an opportunity to do it now, but we wouldn’t mind having the option to do it in the future. “It’s OK if I steal a little, isn’t it”. My answer is No.[/quote]
Being selfish, by itself, is neither illegal nor unethical.
Recall that this discussion is about non-recourse loans, whose entire proceeds went to the purchase of the homes. No part of the money went to the borrowers.
What is it that is being stolen?
The borrowers are not holding any of the lender-provided money.
The lenders, who were given clear notice not to lend more than the house is actually worth, can take back the house at any time. The fact that the lenders have agreed to a deal that precludes them from doing so is nobody’s fault but their own.
The borrowers will ultimately be returned to their beginning positions, without homes and without loan proceeds, and will have lost any money that they put in along the way.
Any free rent benefit that the borrowers receive should be viewed in the same way as punitive damage awards – money that the law awards to parties who don’t “deserve” it, in order to penalize other parties who are responsible for harm caused by their intentional acts or negligence.
July 17, 2009 at 11:06 PM #433718Participant[quote=patientrenter]I acknowledge that there are valid points to be made on both sides of this argument.
But I am ticked off by people pretending that there isn’t often a selfish motive when arguments are made that it’s OK to walk away from repaying your debts. Let’s face it, not many of us think of ourselves as investors who loaned large amounts of our own personal money to people overpaying for homes, and might lose a $1 of our own money for each $1 that’s not repaid. But lots of us are, or plan to be, homeowners. As homeowners, it would be nice if we could avoid repaying our mortgage, and feel no pangs of conscience or the pain of social opprobrium. We may never have done it, and we may not have an opportunity to do it now, but we wouldn’t mind having the option to do it in the future. “It’s OK if I steal a little, isn’t it”. My answer is No.[/quote]
Being selfish, by itself, is neither illegal nor unethical.
Recall that this discussion is about non-recourse loans, whose entire proceeds went to the purchase of the homes. No part of the money went to the borrowers.
What is it that is being stolen?
The borrowers are not holding any of the lender-provided money.
The lenders, who were given clear notice not to lend more than the house is actually worth, can take back the house at any time. The fact that the lenders have agreed to a deal that precludes them from doing so is nobody’s fault but their own.
The borrowers will ultimately be returned to their beginning positions, without homes and without loan proceeds, and will have lost any money that they put in along the way.
Any free rent benefit that the borrowers receive should be viewed in the same way as punitive damage awards – money that the law awards to parties who don’t “deserve” it, in order to penalize other parties who are responsible for harm caused by their intentional acts or negligence.
July 17, 2009 at 11:06 PM #433790Participant[quote=patientrenter]I acknowledge that there are valid points to be made on both sides of this argument.
But I am ticked off by people pretending that there isn’t often a selfish motive when arguments are made that it’s OK to walk away from repaying your debts. Let’s face it, not many of us think of ourselves as investors who loaned large amounts of our own personal money to people overpaying for homes, and might lose a $1 of our own money for each $1 that’s not repaid. But lots of us are, or plan to be, homeowners. As homeowners, it would be nice if we could avoid repaying our mortgage, and feel no pangs of conscience or the pain of social opprobrium. We may never have done it, and we may not have an opportunity to do it now, but we wouldn’t mind having the option to do it in the future. “It’s OK if I steal a little, isn’t it”. My answer is No.[/quote]
Being selfish, by itself, is neither illegal nor unethical.
Recall that this discussion is about non-recourse loans, whose entire proceeds went to the purchase of the homes. No part of the money went to the borrowers.
What is it that is being stolen?
The borrowers are not holding any of the lender-provided money.
The lenders, who were given clear notice not to lend more than the house is actually worth, can take back the house at any time. The fact that the lenders have agreed to a deal that precludes them from doing so is nobody’s fault but their own.
The borrowers will ultimately be returned to their beginning positions, without homes and without loan proceeds, and will have lost any money that they put in along the way.
Any free rent benefit that the borrowers receive should be viewed in the same way as punitive damage awards – money that the law awards to parties who don’t “deserve” it, in order to penalize other parties who are responsible for harm caused by their intentional acts or negligence.
July 17, 2009 at 11:06 PM #433954Participant[quote=patientrenter]I acknowledge that there are valid points to be made on both sides of this argument.
But I am ticked off by people pretending that there isn’t often a selfish motive when arguments are made that it’s OK to walk away from repaying your debts. Let’s face it, not many of us think of ourselves as investors who loaned large amounts of our own personal money to people overpaying for homes, and might lose a $1 of our own money for each $1 that’s not repaid. But lots of us are, or plan to be, homeowners. As homeowners, it would be nice if we could avoid repaying our mortgage, and feel no pangs of conscience or the pain of social opprobrium. We may never have done it, and we may not have an opportunity to do it now, but we wouldn’t mind having the option to do it in the future. “It’s OK if I steal a little, isn’t it”. My answer is No.[/quote]
Being selfish, by itself, is neither illegal nor unethical.
Recall that this discussion is about non-recourse loans, whose entire proceeds went to the purchase of the homes. No part of the money went to the borrowers.
What is it that is being stolen?
The borrowers are not holding any of the lender-provided money.
The lenders, who were given clear notice not to lend more than the house is actually worth, can take back the house at any time. The fact that the lenders have agreed to a deal that precludes them from doing so is nobody’s fault but their own.
The borrowers will ultimately be returned to their beginning positions, without homes and without loan proceeds, and will have lost any money that they put in along the way.
Any free rent benefit that the borrowers receive should be viewed in the same way as punitive damage awards – money that the law awards to parties who don’t “deserve” it, in order to penalize other parties who are responsible for harm caused by their intentional acts or negligence.
July 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM #433240temeculaguy
ParticipantThis is why people hate lawyers. Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of?
Yes.I guess it all depends on what your definition of “is” is. Sorry, didn’t mean to pull a lewinski, but where is the mention of right and wrong, business ethics and illegality aside, many of us still believe in that right and wrong crap, some of us choose to live by it, perhaps to our detriment, but it keeps us warm on cold nights.
It all boils down to people you want to drink with and people you dont want to drink with. People who’s funeral you will miss a playoff game to attend and people you wouldn’t miss a midseason clippers game to send off. The choice is yours, pick who you want to be, the law and your ethics class may give you a pass but i wont save you a seat at the bar. I’ll give you a pass if you cant uphold your obligation, but if you choose not to because it will benefit you, then you aren’t worth my time. Who doesn’t know a guy who pays his child support to be in compliance with the law but fails to parent his child.
Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of? Yes.
be a big boy and make your momma proud.
July 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM #433446ParticipantThis is why people hate lawyers. Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of?
Yes.I guess it all depends on what your definition of “is” is. Sorry, didn’t mean to pull a lewinski, but where is the mention of right and wrong, business ethics and illegality aside, many of us still believe in that right and wrong crap, some of us choose to live by it, perhaps to our detriment, but it keeps us warm on cold nights.
It all boils down to people you want to drink with and people you dont want to drink with. People who’s funeral you will miss a playoff game to attend and people you wouldn’t miss a midseason clippers game to send off. The choice is yours, pick who you want to be, the law and your ethics class may give you a pass but i wont save you a seat at the bar. I’ll give you a pass if you cant uphold your obligation, but if you choose not to because it will benefit you, then you aren’t worth my time. Who doesn’t know a guy who pays his child support to be in compliance with the law but fails to parent his child.
Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of? Yes.
be a big boy and make your momma proud.
July 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM #433747ParticipantThis is why people hate lawyers. Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of?
Yes.I guess it all depends on what your definition of “is” is. Sorry, didn’t mean to pull a lewinski, but where is the mention of right and wrong, business ethics and illegality aside, many of us still believe in that right and wrong crap, some of us choose to live by it, perhaps to our detriment, but it keeps us warm on cold nights.
It all boils down to people you want to drink with and people you dont want to drink with. People who’s funeral you will miss a playoff game to attend and people you wouldn’t miss a midseason clippers game to send off. The choice is yours, pick who you want to be, the law and your ethics class may give you a pass but i wont save you a seat at the bar. I’ll give you a pass if you cant uphold your obligation, but if you choose not to because it will benefit you, then you aren’t worth my time. Who doesn’t know a guy who pays his child support to be in compliance with the law but fails to parent his child.
Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of? Yes.
be a big boy and make your momma proud.
July 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM #433818ParticipantThis is why people hate lawyers. Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of?
Yes.I guess it all depends on what your definition of “is” is. Sorry, didn’t mean to pull a lewinski, but where is the mention of right and wrong, business ethics and illegality aside, many of us still believe in that right and wrong crap, some of us choose to live by it, perhaps to our detriment, but it keeps us warm on cold nights.
It all boils down to people you want to drink with and people you dont want to drink with. People who’s funeral you will miss a playoff game to attend and people you wouldn’t miss a midseason clippers game to send off. The choice is yours, pick who you want to be, the law and your ethics class may give you a pass but i wont save you a seat at the bar. I’ll give you a pass if you cant uphold your obligation, but if you choose not to because it will benefit you, then you aren’t worth my time. Who doesn’t know a guy who pays his child support to be in compliance with the law but fails to parent his child.
Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of? Yes.
be a big boy and make your momma proud.
July 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM #433984ParticipantThis is why people hate lawyers. Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of?
Yes.I guess it all depends on what your definition of “is” is. Sorry, didn’t mean to pull a lewinski, but where is the mention of right and wrong, business ethics and illegality aside, many of us still believe in that right and wrong crap, some of us choose to live by it, perhaps to our detriment, but it keeps us warm on cold nights.
It all boils down to people you want to drink with and people you dont want to drink with. People who’s funeral you will miss a playoff game to attend and people you wouldn’t miss a midseason clippers game to send off. The choice is yours, pick who you want to be, the law and your ethics class may give you a pass but i wont save you a seat at the bar. I’ll give you a pass if you cant uphold your obligation, but if you choose not to because it will benefit you, then you aren’t worth my time. Who doesn’t know a guy who pays his child support to be in compliance with the law but fails to parent his child.
Illegal? no. Unethical? debatable. Something to be ashamed of? Yes.
be a big boy and make your momma proud.
July 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM #433400ParticipantIt appears that the most important thought is not getting through to some.
When you look at a situation and observe ten categories of participants, who have all done wrong, you should not spend your time and mental energy addressing the actions of the minor players. Without the wrong-doing of the financial institutions and the inaction (some would say collusion) of the government and appointed regulators, dishonest borrowers would have zero impact on your life and finances.
The time and mental energy spent addressing the sins of the little players would be better spent addressing the sins of the big players, who were and are taking every opportunity to defraud investors and/or loot the U. S. Treasury, effectively stealing from you and I, the taxpayers. That is the undeserved gain to focus on, not the fact that some upside-down borrowers are failing to repay their loans, or benefitting from a free-rent situation.
Worry less about the borrowers, and more about the big picture. If the primary perpetrators are not reined in, they will continue causing further great harm.
July 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM #433603ParticipantIt appears that the most important thought is not getting through to some.
When you look at a situation and observe ten categories of participants, who have all done wrong, you should not spend your time and mental energy addressing the actions of the minor players. Without the wrong-doing of the financial institutions and the inaction (some would say collusion) of the government and appointed regulators, dishonest borrowers would have zero impact on your life and finances.
The time and mental energy spent addressing the sins of the little players would be better spent addressing the sins of the big players, who were and are taking every opportunity to defraud investors and/or loot the U. S. Treasury, effectively stealing from you and I, the taxpayers. That is the undeserved gain to focus on, not the fact that some upside-down borrowers are failing to repay their loans, or benefitting from a free-rent situation.
Worry less about the borrowers, and more about the big picture. If the primary perpetrators are not reined in, they will continue causing further great harm.
July 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM #433911ParticipantIt appears that the most important thought is not getting through to some.
When you look at a situation and observe ten categories of participants, who have all done wrong, you should not spend your time and mental energy addressing the actions of the minor players. Without the wrong-doing of the financial institutions and the inaction (some would say collusion) of the government and appointed regulators, dishonest borrowers would have zero impact on your life and finances.
The time and mental energy spent addressing the sins of the little players would be better spent addressing the sins of the big players, who were and are taking every opportunity to defraud investors and/or loot the U. S. Treasury, effectively stealing from you and I, the taxpayers. That is the undeserved gain to focus on, not the fact that some upside-down borrowers are failing to repay their loans, or benefitting from a free-rent situation.
Worry less about the borrowers, and more about the big picture. If the primary perpetrators are not reined in, they will continue causing further great harm.
July 18, 2009 at 11:29 AM #433983ParticipantIt appears that the most important thought is not getting through to some.
When you look at a situation and observe ten categories of participants, who have all done wrong, you should not spend your time and mental energy addressing the actions of the minor players. Without the wrong-doing of the financial institutions and the inaction (some would say collusion) of the government and appointed regulators, dishonest borrowers would have zero impact on your life and finances.
The time and mental energy spent addressing the sins of the little players would be better spent addressing the sins of the big players, who were and are taking every opportunity to defraud investors and/or loot the U. S. Treasury, effectively stealing from you and I, the taxpayers. That is the undeserved gain to focus on, not the fact that some upside-down borrowers are failing to repay their loans, or benefitting from a free-rent situation.
Worry less about the borrowers, and more about the big picture. If the primary perpetrators are not reined in, they will continue causing further great harm.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.