sounds like they assessed the risk incorrectly or their risk tolerance didn't equal the actual risks they took. Isn't this normal? If I buy stock with all my money, and the stock dramatically lowers in price, I don't get to complain to the government and get free money, do I?
first of all, if lenders did the kind of DD you are talking about, it would preclude most ordinary w-2 employees ever getting a mortgage for a home. "they have only one source of income! they could lose it at any time!" these people are a much bigger risk than some landlord trying to get a mortgage for their nth rental property.
to answer your second question: if you, a private individual, bet all your money on investments that go belly up, you're just screwed. if you're a large financial institution, you get to argue that your going under would create rippling consequences that outweigh the erosion of moral hazard that comes with a bailout. it's not fair or reasonable, but it's reality.
"they have only one source of income! they could lose it at any time!" these people are a much bigger risk than some landlord trying to get a mortgage for their nth rental property.
Fairly certain source of income isn't the only variable. What about rainy day fund? Aren't individuals encouraged to have 3-6 months worth of expenses in cash for emergencies? Shouldn't the lender assure that this is the case before lending?
Comments
sounds like they assessed the risk incorrectly or their risk tolerance didn't equal the actual risks they took. Isn't this normal? If I buy stock with all my money, and the stock dramatically lowers in price, I don't get to complain to the government and get free money, do I?
first of all, if lenders did the kind of DD you are talking about, it would preclude most ordinary w-2 employees ever getting a mortgage for a home. "they have only one source of income! they could lose it at any time!" these people are a much bigger risk than some landlord trying to get a mortgage for their nth rental property.
to answer your second question: if you, a private individual, bet all your money on investments that go belly up, you're just screwed. if you're a large financial institution, you get to argue that your going under would create rippling consequences that outweigh the erosion of moral hazard that comes with a bailout. it's not fair or reasonable, but it's reality.
Fairly certain source of income isn't the only variable. What about rainy day fund? Aren't individuals encouraged to have 3-6 months worth of expenses in cash for emergencies? Shouldn't the lender assure that this is the case before lending?