Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (193180)	9/22/2002 8:25:11 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Respond to of 436258

that's all very sensible, mish. unfortunately doing as you suggest would sink the economy since our "growth" is predicated on expanding credit. imo there is no (practical, politically feasible) way out. "It's a lot like what my painter friend Donald said to me "Stick a fork in their ass and turn them over, they're done""

To: mishedlo who wrote (193180)	9/22/2002 10:15:34 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

>>How can someone deep in hock with 3 credit cards be offered a 4th? First- Thank your liberal legislators and judges for this one, Mike. Lenders have to go through a lot of hoops to show that they are not restricting access to credit based on race, sex, national origin, disability status, etc. Courts have ruled against companies using demographic characteristics such as ZIP code to determine access to credit, for example. What companies have to use as a result is credit scoring models. Needless to say, the models have flaws, and they hardly allow scrutiny such as that done by the old community banker who lent based on character. Second- Would you rather these high-risk people visit their neighborhood loan shark to get access to credit? That is exactly what you are proposing. Under the current system, they are able to borrow from a legitimate lender. To people who have good credit and high incomes, these lenders may seem "predatory". But at least with these lenders one has legal recourse to stop aggressive collection agencies and a procedure for disputing debts. Calling these lenders "predatory" is a privilege of the smug upper-middle class. >>f the company extending credit is aware of problems and issues more credit then that additional credit is 100% the fault of the lender This is simplistic. People who get in trouble with debt often have many sources of debt. They may have undocumented debts as well (friends, family, loan sharks, bookies, payroll lenders). How is a lender supposed to know this without engaging in unlawful practices, especially against members of a protected class? Have you ever been in business for yourself? Have you ever come in contact with people who have severe credit problems? Your solutions would result in the following: A low-income person would never, ever get a mortgage or a credit card. Someone with any credit problems in the past would suffer the same fate. Do you think these people would stop demanding credit? Where do you think they would go? Talk about predation!

To: mishedlo who wrote (193180)	9/23/2002 9:17:46 AM
From: BDR	Respond to of 436258

Sub-prime lenders are responsible for the credit they extend to poor risks. They may be backers of reform but I don't see how reform would help them. If one of their clients goes belly up it seems likely there will be no assets to recover with or without reform. When I think of reform I think of the physician who owed me about $50,000 in a business deal at the time that he moved to Las Vegas to take a job with a guaranteed income of $300,000. He bought himself a new house and a new car. Then I guess he decided he didn't like carrying around his past debts so he filed bankruptcy. Although he clearly had the means to pay his debts, the court let him keep the house and the car, he still has his six-figure job, but his creditors, myself included, were told by the court to go whistle. When I think of reform I think of the middle aged woman who owed me a much smaller amount that got wiped away by bankruptcy. Before filing she first spent a small fortune on plastic surgery with implants, liposuction, etc. Plastic surgeons are smart enough to demand cash payment up front. Those of us who extended her credit were left sucking wind. She was employed throughout the affair and I still see her occasionally at work. I doubt a credit check would have alerted me to a problem with the physician I cited and in my line of work I am prohibited in most cases from denying service to people based on their ability to pay. There is wide spread abuse in the application of bankruptcy laws and it must end.