Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
1–10 of 191 posts
Re: Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
#2They'll lend you, just at higher rates. This is banks doing what they do, taking the umbrella now that it's raining.
Re: Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
#3They'll lend you, just at higher rates. This is banks doing what they do, taking the umbrella now that it's raining.
> taking the umbrella now that it's raining
Always found this a very strange metaphore. Banks seem to always face criticism for 1) when they don't lend to people who need it most and 2) when they do lend to people who are likely to default. It seems fairly obvious that there is a very large overlap between those groups.
Re: Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
#4They'll lend you, just at higher rates. This is banks doing what they do, taking the umbrella now that it's raining.
> taking the umbrella now that it's raining Always found this a very strange metaphore. Banks seem to always face criticism for 1) when they don't lend to people who need it most and 2) when they do lend to people who are likely to default. It seems fairly obvious that there is a very large overlap between those groups.
Has anyone ever criticised a bank for lending to someone who needs it most at a rate they are likely to afford to minimise chance of default? I mean banks aren't charities and maybe they're not/shouldn't be obliged to do this, but it's not like everyone is being hypocritical - we're allowed to expect institutions to do things that are in the public interest rather than their own private interest (freedom of opinion and all that).
Re: Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
#5They'll lend you, just at higher rates. This is banks doing what they do, taking the umbrella now that it's raining.
> taking the umbrella now that it's raining Always found this a very strange metaphore. Banks seem to always face criticism for 1) when they don't lend to people who need it most and 2) when they do lend to people who are likely to default. It seems fairly obvious that there is a very large overlap between those groups.
Payday lenders fill this gap.
Everyone hates them as well.
Everyone hates student loans and they fill a different gap.
Basically, people hate people who lend money.
Re: Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
> taking the umbrella now that it's raining Always found this a very strange metaphore. Banks seem to always face criticism for 1) when they don't lend to people who need it most and 2) when they do lend to people who are likely to default. It seems fairly obvious that there is a very large overlap between those groups.
Payday lenders fill this gap. Everyone hates them as well. Everyone hates student loans and they fill a different gap. Basically, people hate people who lend money.
There's a reason usury was historically a serious sin.
Re: Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Payday lenders fill this gap. Everyone hates them as well. Everyone hates student loans and they fill a different gap. Basically, people hate people who lend money.
There's a reason usury was historically a serious sin.
It was in fact punishable by death in Christian countries. In theory it's also still a sin in Islam. That's why most of the first bankers… were not Christians or Muslims if I can put it that way.
Re: Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> taking the umbrella now that it's raining Always found this a very strange metaphore. Banks seem to always face criticism for 1) when they don't lend to people who need it most and 2) when they do lend to people who are likely to default. It seems fairly obvious that there is a very large overlap between those groups.
Has anyone ever criticised a bank for lending to someone who needs it most at a rate they are likely to afford to minimise chance of default? I mean banks aren't charities and maybe they're not/shouldn't be obliged to do this, but it's not like everyone is being hypocritical - we're allowed to expect institutions to do things that are in the public interest rather than their own private interest (freedom of opinion a…
>Has anyone ever criticised a bank for lending to someone who needs it most at a rate they are likely to afford to minimise chance of default?
Does any business operate this way, including the one you work at? That is, selling things to the people who need it most for the amount that "minimizes default" (ie lowest price).
>we're allowed to expect institutions to do things that are in the public interest
This article is about wealthy mortgage borrowers. The first guy is 60 years old with a $700k mortgage who wants a lower rate. How is it in the public's interest to grant him that? Perhaps it's in the public's interest for this man to continue to pay his modestly higher rate in order to cover expected losses from those who truly need it?
Re: Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
#9Jumbo loans were people wanting more than they could afford and the bank hedging that they could actually afford it. Ends up that they can't.
Re: Wealthy mortgage borrowers face cold shoulder from lenders
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone ever criticised a bank for lending to someone who needs it most at a rate they are likely to afford to minimise chance of default? I mean banks aren't charities and maybe they're not/shouldn't be obliged to do this, but it's not like everyone is being hypocritical - we're allowed to expect institutions to do things that are in the public interest rather than their own private interest (freedom of opinion a…
> Has anyone ever criticised a bank for lending to someone who needs it most at a rate they are likely to afford to minimise chance of default? Does any business operate this way, including the one you work at? That is, selling things to the people who need it most for the amount that "minimizes default" (ie lowest price). > we're allowed to expect institutions to do things that are in the public interest This articl…
> Does any business operate this way, including the one you work at? That is, selling things to the people who need it most for the amount that "minimizes default" (ie lowest price).
No. But then again, being a businessman isn't seen as unqualified virtue in many places in the world. You'll also note that "selling things to the people who need it most for the lowest price" is literally the justification given for why free and competitive markets are good. It's the goal societies want to achieve. In this, competitive pressure is a hack to force the businesses to reduce prices.