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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (39725)	10/18/2010 3:41:50 PM
From: Madharry	Respond to of 78744

There is a clear difference between a moral issue and a business transaction. When I was in banking we made commercial loans where the individual borrowers were specifically exculpated from responsibility for the loan. meaning if we couldnt collect from the sale of the property we were out of luck. In my view one could easily make the case that it is immoral to try to collect from an individual in a state where the law is clear that once you have a mortgage on the property that is all you are entitled to collect on. Once again I would find it incredible that lenders in that specific state would be unaware of the law. To me its close to trying to collect from you on a loan that was made to a relative of yours.

To: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (39725)	10/18/2010 6:43:37 PM
From: Mr.Gogo	Respond to of 78744

Jurgis, Talking about morale in lending. Why the banks did not ask for 30% down payment? Greed. Because of this greed and reckless lending, prices went up to the sky. Nobody was talking about morale at this time. You cannot compare the morale in eastern Europe and USA. The difference is in the systems. The system in US forces the people to obey the law, in eastern Europe it doesn't. But you are right it is very difficult to rebuild morale once you destroy it. good luck, Georgi

To: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (39725)	10/19/2010 12:42:03 AM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78744

Jurgis, for me defaulting on a loan (be it strategic or not) is not renegading or breaking a contract. As i understand it, defaulting on a secured asset is simply an option that is freely given the borrower by the lender, at the time the loan was granted. So essentially, the lender has handed out the borrower a put option. Obviously lenders underestimated the probability that the borrower would exercise that option. This is really no different than the case where your bring your wedding ring to the pawnbroker to get a (secured) loan. The pawnbroker is responsible to make sure he has enough collateral at hand , if not he is going to be out of his money. There is no breach of contract if you can't or don't want to cough up the money to get your wedding ring back (assuming no fraud), because for example the gold price took a dive since the loan was granted. In my point of view, you would have no obligation to make the pawnbroker whole, just as the pawnbroker does not have an obligation to make you whole if you can't pay off you loan and the pawnbroker were able to sell of you ring for more than the value of the loan plus interest. A foreclosure works just the same way, except that the lenders were exceptionally bad pawnbrokers for the last couple of years.