will further bank regulation torpedo the economy even further?

#101
#101
droski said:
many people lied on their applications. others had credit scores that were artificially high. i doubt there are many examples of a maid buying 5 houses while listing her real income. these days people actually ask for proof of said income, but that wasn't true before.
Click to expand...

I find myself asking how this is possible. Not needing proof? really? Common sense?
 
#103
#103
rjd970 said:
People who bought houses they can't afford have credit scores in the tank, most don't have houses, and many are still underwater.

The difference is the above applies to people who did it the right way too. The teller who had nothing to do with it still has a job, the homeowner who did everything right may not.

Not saying go and fire every teller so misery is shared, I am saying compare apples to apples. Many innocent people got screwed, both on the lender and consumer side.

Blaming one more than the other stupid. One side borrowed based on greed, the other lended based on greed.
Click to expand...

they lost houses they shouldn't have owned in the first place. if i went out and bought a bently i wouldn't really argue me not being able to pay the payments meant i "lost" my car.

those in the financial industry have lost jobs at a much higher rate than the average american. i just don't get the argument tehy haven't been punished enough.

don't disagree

not sure it was all greed. stupidity certainly. obviously if they knew all these loans were going to blow up they wouldn't have done it. if you look at most of the banks underwriting they were vastly superior to the non bank underwriting. generally speaking it was the mortgage providers (countrywide, indymac) that torpedoed the market and all of those companies are no longer here. obviously the banks are to blame for buying mortgages from said companies.
 
#104
#104
droski said:
no one is arguing the banks weren't dumb or at fault for lending to people without verifying income. difference being the banks seem to be getting 100% of the guilt where the people defrauding them are getting 0%.
Click to expand...

Aren't the banks at least 50% defrauding themselves?
 
#107
#107
droski said:
they lost houses they shouldn't have owned in the first place. if i went out and bought a bently i wouldn't really argue me not being able to pay the payments meant i "lost" my car.

those in the financial industry have lost jobs at a much higher rate than the average american. i just don't get the argument tehy haven't been punished enough.

don't disagree

not sure it was all greed. stupidity certainly. obviously if they knew all these loans were going to blow up they wouldn't have done it. if you look at most of the banks underwriting they were vastly superior to the non bank underwriting. generally speaking it was the mortgage providers (countrywide, indymac) that torpedoed the market and all of those companies are no longer here. obviously the banks are to blame for buying mortgages from said companies.
Click to expand...

Again, droski, how do you come to the conclusion that it was greed on the part of the consumer and stupidity on the part of the bank? Maybe the idiot that got the loan really thought he could afford it...afterall, he had a bank full of educated people telling him he could. Now he doesn't have a house and doesn't understand why.

Bottomline is the loan should have never been approved by the bank, and the hairdresser should have known they couldn't afford a $500K house. The pure greed cases are small on both sides, but it is hard for me to understand how the professionals on the banking side didn't know this wasn't right.

I'm an engineer, I don't expect you to understand what I do, but I provide a service that you can pay for. I can't come back and blame you when I screw up because you signed off on it. Sure, blame can be shared, but in the end I am the one that provided the service.
 
#108
#108
droski said:
why? who is more responsible for YOUR OWN FINANCES than you? that's absurd. i've never understood why giving people more money then they deserve is preditory. i'll gladly take your free money if you don't want it.
Click to expand...

It's both. When those loans were given, both the lenders and the home owners were at fault and should pay for it
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#109
#109
rjd970 said:
Again, droski, how do you come to the conclusion that it was greed on the part of the consumer and stupidity on the part of the bank? Maybe the idiot that got the loan really thought he could afford it...afterall, he had a bank full of educated people telling him he could. Now he doesn't have a house and doesn't understand why.

Bottomline is the loan should have never been approved by the bank, and the hairdresser should have known they couldn't afford a $500K house. The pure greed cases are small on both sides, but it is hard for me to understand how the professionals on the banking side didn't know this wasn't right.

I'm an engineer, I don't expect you to understand what I do, but I provide a service that you can pay for. I can't come back and blame you when I screw up because you signed off on it. Sure, blame can be shared, but in the end I am the one that provided the service.
Click to expand...

i don't have sympathy for either party who screwed up. i'm sure some thought they could afford it, but it's hard for me to understand seeing the mortgage payment and not having any idea that you can't afford it, but i agree some are that stupid.

of course they shouldn't ahve been approved. obviously a lot of underwriters realized they weren't doing what was right and profited off of it. and obviously a lot of the bankers should have realized this conflict of interest and should ahve done their own due dilligance.

not really understanding the comparison.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top