I mean.. they did loan the money, with all the associated responsibilities and risks of loaning money. And they did do the work. All the agreements were entered voluntarily, so what's the fault here?
Fault for that goes both ways, towards to people who took the loan and the people who gave the loan. The people who gave the loan knew a lot more about the specific details and risks, so I find it hard to blame the people who took the loan.
I thoroughly agree with your 1st & 3rd paragraphs, but the situation described in your 2nd paragraph sounds like one in which the lenders are irresponsible, whereas the owners of the borrower alone seem to usually be blamed.
Yes but the interview seems to imply that this diminishes or somehow makes the case for the problem overblown. It says yes this is a problem, but doesn't really go into any specifics on why it's a bigger problem for those borrowers or that this is where the defaults are coming from. I guess
I could have worded my comment better to say that I felt it wasn't given enough attention or depth.
Many of the lenders were complicit in fudging numbers to make people qualify for loans they should not have qualified for. They are just as responsible, if not more so than the borrowers.
For every unwise borrower there is an unwise lender. My sympathies are more with the borrower, since the lender, as the side that supposedly hired people with financial acumen, bears a majority of the responsibility for assessing risk.
reply