You cannot have it both ways

[bobby]

“When we have well educated people posting on the internet that they will do much better by simply walking away from the loan, then to me that is a harbinger that perhaps the next time around we need to redesign the process. Yes he is exercising his legal right but maybe the next time around, if that right didn’t exist then maybe he would not have jumped into the game to begin with.”

the bank WROTE the contract. the bank could simply change the wording. adding more laws isn’t needed.
I thought you’re a realtor.

[DaCounselor]

I disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.

And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.

How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.

[DaCounselor]

I disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.

And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.

How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.

[DaCounselor]

I disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.

And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.

How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.

[DaCounselor]

I disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.

And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.

How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.

[DaCounselor]

I disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.

And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.

How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.

[savedbypigs]

SD, I meant no offense. All I am saying is, from a legal standpoint at least, the responsibility for the bad line of code has been placed in the hands of the lender. So I don’t think it’s fair to impose perceived moral or ethical obligations upon people that did not assume them in the first instance.

If we want to change the nature of home loans in the future, that is a proposition I haven’t fully considered, although I’m not really sure that $50,000 income Joe with the $600,000 loan would really have cared if the loan was recourse or nonrecourse because he presumably has no assets. Sensible Sheila, who can afford the loan, would obviously have cared, but isn’t our current state of affairs more the result of the Joes, and not the Sheilas? And is it really too much to ask that lenders get a clue before they start throwing their money around in the expectation of repayment?

[savedbypigs]

SD, I meant no offense. All I am saying is, from a legal standpoint at least, the responsibility for the bad line of code has been placed in the hands of the lender. So I don’t think it’s fair to impose perceived moral or ethical obligations upon people that did not assume them in the first instance.

If we want to change the nature of home loans in the future, that is a proposition I haven’t fully considered, although I’m not really sure that $50,000 income Joe with the $600,000 loan would really have cared if the loan was recourse or nonrecourse because he presumably has no assets. Sensible Sheila, who can afford the loan, would obviously have cared, but isn’t our current state of affairs more the result of the Joes, and not the Sheilas? And is it really too much to ask that lenders get a clue before they start throwing their money around in the expectation of repayment?

[savedbypigs]

SD, I meant no offense. All I am saying is, from a legal standpoint at least, the responsibility for the bad line of code has been placed in the hands of the lender. So I don’t think it’s fair to impose perceived moral or ethical obligations upon people that did not assume them in the first instance.

If we want to change the nature of home loans in the future, that is a proposition I haven’t fully considered, although I’m not really sure that $50,000 income Joe with the $600,000 loan would really have cared if the loan was recourse or nonrecourse because he presumably has no assets. Sensible Sheila, who can afford the loan, would obviously have cared, but isn’t our current state of affairs more the result of the Joes, and not the Sheilas? And is it really too much to ask that lenders get a clue before they start throwing their money around in the expectation of repayment?

[savedbypigs]

SD, I meant no offense. All I am saying is, from a legal standpoint at least, the responsibility for the bad line of code has been placed in the hands of the lender. So I don’t think it’s fair to impose perceived moral or ethical obligations upon people that did not assume them in the first instance.

If we want to change the nature of home loans in the future, that is a proposition I haven’t fully considered, although I’m not really sure that $50,000 income Joe with the $600,000 loan would really have cared if the loan was recourse or nonrecourse because he presumably has no assets. Sensible Sheila, who can afford the loan, would obviously have cared, but isn’t our current state of affairs more the result of the Joes, and not the Sheilas? And is it really too much to ask that lenders get a clue before they start throwing their money around in the expectation of repayment?

[savedbypigs]

SD, I meant no offense. All I am saying is, from a legal standpoint at least, the responsibility for the bad line of code has been placed in the hands of the lender. So I don’t think it’s fair to impose perceived moral or ethical obligations upon people that did not assume them in the first instance.

If we want to change the nature of home loans in the future, that is a proposition I haven’t fully considered, although I’m not really sure that $50,000 income Joe with the $600,000 loan would really have cared if the loan was recourse or nonrecourse because he presumably has no assets. Sensible Sheila, who can afford the loan, would obviously have cared, but isn’t our current state of affairs more the result of the Joes, and not the Sheilas? And is it really too much to ask that lenders get a clue before they start throwing their money around in the expectation of repayment?

[NotCranky]

SDR I appreciate you desire to have changes that would produce stable market and enforce personal and institutional responsibility. If we could skip the gold rush mentality every decade by installing better checks and balances there would be no real big winners and losers and the economy wouldn’t convulse over something as basic as shelter. Smart people could still progress with Re investment. I also think commission structures could stabilize with the market to where people didn’t feel,appropriately in my opinion, like they were getting ripped off.
I think the editorial mish wrote explains a lot of it too. Poster claiming that abiding by a contract is just, are making good points.I certainly don’t think that invalidates what you are putting on the table.

[NotCranky]

SDR I appreciate you desire to have changes that would produce stable market and enforce personal and institutional responsibility. If we could skip the gold rush mentality every decade by installing better checks and balances there would be no real big winners and losers and the economy wouldn’t convulse over something as basic as shelter. Smart people could still progress with Re investment. I also think commission structures could stabilize with the market to where people didn’t feel,appropriately in my opinion, like they were getting ripped off.
I think the editorial mish wrote explains a lot of it too. Poster claiming that abiding by a contract is just, are making good points.I certainly don’t think that invalidates what you are putting on the table.

[NotCranky]

SDR I appreciate you desire to have changes that would produce stable market and enforce personal and institutional responsibility. If we could skip the gold rush mentality every decade by installing better checks and balances there would be no real big winners and losers and the economy wouldn’t convulse over something as basic as shelter. Smart people could still progress with Re investment. I also think commission structures could stabilize with the market to where people didn’t feel,appropriately in my opinion, like they were getting ripped off.
I think the editorial mish wrote explains a lot of it too. Poster claiming that abiding by a contract is just, are making good points.I certainly don’t think that invalidates what you are putting on the table.

[NotCranky]

SDR I appreciate you desire to have changes that would produce stable market and enforce personal and institutional responsibility. If we could skip the gold rush mentality every decade by installing better checks and balances there would be no real big winners and losers and the economy wouldn’t convulse over something as basic as shelter. Smart people could still progress with Re investment. I also think commission structures could stabilize with the market to where people didn’t feel,appropriately in my opinion, like they were getting ripped off.
I think the editorial mish wrote explains a lot of it too. Poster claiming that abiding by a contract is just, are making good points.I certainly don’t think that invalidates what you are putting on the table.

[Author]

Posts