• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

Is there a moral obligation to repay money you borrow?


  • Total voters
    98
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

Yes. But if it is beyond the person to pay then grace or forgiveness is needed. For example Greek debt is unrealistic. It can't be paid. It must be forgiven. At least most of it. Corporations go bankrupt all the time. So do individuals. Sometimes a nation defaults.
 
No one said businesses are moral. That's not what the OP asked. Businesses are based on law and contracts. Not morality.

Right but if I as an individual have moral responsibilities to fulfill my end of a loan contract, I can't avoid that by incorporating and having the "business" borrow money. The law respects that an LLC or corp is a separate entity from the owners for purposes of legal liability for loans and losses, but I can't imagine morality will follow the letter of the law and mandate repayment if an individual or sole proprietor but NOT if an LLC/LLP/Corporation, etc.

And that's my point - if you accept that 'businesses' are amoral and you appear to, then I see no reason why an individual on the opposite side of a contract with an amoral, profit maximizing 'business' has a uniquely moral duty with regard to that contract that the 'business' does not share. I think their "moral" obligations are identical - maximize profits.

One other point - conflating "cheating, fraud, and non-payment" is illegitimate. Remedies for default are outlined in the loan document that both parties agreed to, and there is no fraud for a party to default and accept those terms - lose the house, ruin credit, generally allow the lender to sue for any shortfall if the collateral is insufficient to pay the loan, perhaps a bankruptcy filing, etc.
 
Right but if I as an individual have moral responsibilities to fulfill my end of a loan contract, I can't avoid that by incorporating and having the "business" borrow money. The law respects that an LLC or corp is a separate entity from the owners for purposes of legal liability for loans and losses, but I can't imagine morality will follow the letter of the law and mandate repayment if an individual or sole proprietor but NOT if an LLC/LLP/Corporation, etc.

And that's my point - if you accept that 'businesses' are amoral and you appear to, then I see no reason why an individual on the opposite side of a contract with an amoral, profit maximizing 'business' has a uniquely moral duty with regard to that contract that the 'business' does not share. I think their "moral" obligations are identical - maximize profits.

One other point - conflating "cheating, fraud, and non-payment" is illegitimate. Remedies for default are outlined in the loan document that both parties agreed to, and there is no fraud for a party to default and accept those terms - lose the house, ruin credit, generally allow the lender to sue for any shortfall if the collateral is insufficient to pay the loan, perhaps a bankruptcy filing, etc.

You have a moral responsibility to uphold your end of agreements. You may not be legally bound by a moral responsibility and you may at immorally if you wish but sticking other people with YOUR debts is immoral. Doing it "for profit", if anything, makes it even less moral.

You seem to believe that a corporation must do whatever is most profitable for shareholders no matter how immoral or unethical it is and you are incorrect about that. Most businesses are quite ethical and follow through on their agreements and pay their debts. Arguing that it's OK for you to refuse to pay your debts because "other people do it, too" doesn't exonerate you for doing it.

When you owe money and you respond to your creditor as follows: "My house isn't worth what I bought it for, so I'm not paying back my loan. You can just sue me", your behavior is immoral. And the fact that they can sue you doesn't make it any more moral.
 
I criticize coaches and players all the time for wanting to either break a contract and/or renegotiate. If anything, this is a scenario where the team/business has more moral integrity than the coach or player that everybody loves. (That's the rub, isn't it? We like the player/coach, just like we like ourselves, so we're willing to rationalize for them.) If the player or coach bombs, the team is still expected to pay, and they do. Why don't we expect the same level of integrity from the player or coach?

It's not integrity, it's business. The teams EXPECT coaches to leave if a better opportunity comes along and build the costs of the coach leaving into the contract. And those terms are negotiated - it's a straightforward, arms length deal. The team "isn't expected to pay and they do" - they do no more or less than is REQUIRED by the contract, same as the coach or player.

They want the security of the long-term contract when they sign it. Maybe if they want flexibility they shouldn't sign a long-term deal and go just 1 to 2 years at a time. I would approve if teams/businesses started denying these requests. Both sides should be held to their negotiated deal. If they don't want to be 'stuck', they should sign shorter deals.

That's a perfect summary of the obligations we have to contracts - the terms of the negotiated deal.
 
It's not integrity, it's business. The teams EXPECT coaches to leave if a better opportunity comes along and build the costs of the coach leaving into the contract. And those terms are negotiated - it's a straightforward, arms length deal. The team "isn't expected to pay and they do" - they do no more or less than is REQUIRED by the contract, same as the coach or player.

That's a perfect summary of the obligations we have to contracts - the terms of the negotiated deal.
Your first paragraph is wholly incorrect. Your second paragraph confirms that your first paragraph is incorrect.

Player A and Team X sign a contract for 5 years at $1m/yr.

Scenario 1: Player A takes off and becomes a superstar. Two years into it, if Player A were signing a contract now he'd get $5m/yr. He demands to renegotiate. Happens all the time.

Scenario 2: Player A tanks. Same two years, if Player A were signing a contract now he would not even be offered a contract, he's that bad. Does the team demand to renegotiate? No, they don't. They pay it because it's a contract. That's what contracts are.

These two scenarios play out in the sports world all the time, and each have become the norm. Why are we ok with one side being held to their contract... their word... and not the other side?

Under your claims, in Scenario 2 the team would be justified in not paying the remaining three years because it's "just business". They're no longer getting what they paid for. They're "underwater", to use the mortgage analogy. Correct? Yes, if you're intellectually consistent, that will be your opinion.

Or, in Scenario 1, you would favor the player sucking it up and honoring his contract as agreed to. Correct? Again yes, if you're intellectually honest, that will be your opinion.

If you're not intellectually honest, you'll try to find some way for Player A to be able to weasel out of it and not be held to his end of the deal, while still expecting the team to be held to their end.
 
It's not integrity, it's business. The teams EXPECT coaches to leave if a better opportunity comes along and build the costs of the coach leaving into the contract. And those terms are negotiated - it's a straightforward, arms length deal. The team "isn't expected to pay and they do" - they do no more or less than is REQUIRED by the contract, same as the coach or player.



That's a perfect summary of the obligations we have to contracts - the terms of the negotiated deal.

The negotiated terms of a mortgage are to pay back the debt. There is no "I changed my mind and don't want to pay so take my house instead" option in the contract. There is no "repayment optional" clause. But we've been over this at length and this fact doesn't seem to phase you.
 
You seem to believe that a corporation must do whatever is most profitable for shareholders no matter how immoral or unethical it is and you are incorrect about that. Most businesses are quite ethical and follow through on their agreements and pay their debts.

OK, first of all, incorporating or forming an LLC etc. is INTENDED to shield owners of a business from the debts and losses of the corporation. And we all accept that as perfectly "moral." How do you shift the moral obligations by erecting a paper wall between you and the debts? The answer is you don't, but no one would argue it's immoral or unethical for a business OWNER to take advantage of the legal liability provided by the corporate form (or LLC, etc.) - that's the POINT of a limited liability entity. Everyone dealing with the corp or LLC knows about the liability protection and plans accordingly. It's an amoral business decision on both sides.

Arguing that it's OK for you to refuse to pay your debts because "other people do it, too" doesn't exonerate you for doing it.

It's not really what I'm saying at all - I'm saying it's an amoral business decision to abide by the terms of a loan contract same as any other contract. Your obligations under the contract are carefully drafted by teams of lawyers paid big money to protect the interests of the lender and maximize the lender's profits. The lender will NOT add a moral obligation to its legal obligations, and the borrower is similarly (identically) under no moral obligation to act above and beyond the terms of the deal they agreed to.

When you owe money and you respond to your creditor as follows: "My house isn't worth what I bought it for, so I'm not paying back my loan. You can just sue me", your behavior is immoral. And the fact that they can sue you doesn't make it any more moral.

You're just repeating the same thing without providing any clue how you objectively evaluate all the many obligations we have as individuals and businesses. I gave an example of a car lease - you said that's different than a loan, but I can't see what is the principled difference. Amount? Length? I don't know. What's sacred about a loan contract that doesn't apply to any other contract?
 
The negotiated terms of a mortgage are to pay back the debt. There is no "I changed my mind and don't want to pay so take my house instead" option in the contract. There is no "repayment optional" clause. But we've been over this at length and this fact doesn't seem to phase you.
Too many people are rationalizing penalties as legitimate options. No, options would come with no negative repercussions. With a penalty, such as foreclosure, at the very least your credit rating takes a serious and negative hit. If you legitimately honored your contract by surrendering the collateral there would be no negative hit on your credit rating.
 
You're bullchittin' us, aincha? The question statement you were responding to was:



And you're trying to tell us that you worked in the financial sector but can't for the life of you figure out why a cell phone contract and a mortgage aren't comparable? Tell ya what. Since you don't know, I'll help you out. A mortgage is a SECURED LOAN. It is a FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT. A cell phone agreement is... well... a cell phone agreement. It isn't a loan. There's no interest. There's only a service contract for x-amount of time. And you can cancel whenever you wish and pay the balance of the contract plus penalty. But you're GOING to pay. It's not a mortgage. It's not a loan. And your phone isn't collateral. Any bills you decide you're just going to refuse to pay go typically into collections but all bills are not loans. If you have a mental challenge comprehending the differences there, then that would explain your challenges in this discussion - or as Tres Borrachos said, you may simply not be serious in this discussion.

for the purposes of this discussion, your discussion, whether paying a debt is a moral obligation, both are instances of debt
but not surprised you are unable to recognize that very obvious fact
 
Too many people are rationalizing penalties as legitimate options. No, options would come with no negative repercussions. With a penalty, such as foreclosure, at the very least your credit rating takes a serious and negative hit. If you legitimately honored your contract by surrendering the collateral there would be no negative hit on your credit rating.

It is easy to understand for anyone that isn't driven by psychological defense mechanisms to put up a solid front of willful ignorance to protect their delicate psyche.
 
for the purposes of this discussion, your discussion, whether paying a debt is a moral obligation, both are instances of debt
but not surprised you are unable to recognize that very obvious fact

A cell phone isn't a loan. The bill for your healthcare isn't a loan. Your internet service bill isn't a loan. Service contracts can be terminated early. They have provisions for that and early termination of your contract is an option stipulated in the contract and it is not a default.

You can terminate your mortgage prematurely, too, merely by paying off the loan. That isn't a default, either. A default is when you don't abide by the terms of the contract.

For someone that was claiming real savvy in the lending industry, you don't understand the very significant details you are trying to pretend don't even exist.

Cell phones aren't mortgages. The only thing they have in common is the existence of a contract and a payment schedule but that is hardly enough to claim apples and apples without a whole lot of feigned ignorance.
 
Your first paragraph is wholly incorrect. Your second paragraph confirms that your first paragraph is incorrect.

Player A and Team X sign a contract for 5 years at $1m/yr.

Scenario 1: Player A takes off and becomes a superstar. Two years into it, if Player A were signing a contract now he'd get $5m/yr. He demands to renegotiate. Happens all the time.

The player can demand to renegotiate all he wants - the team is under no obligation to do a thing. The team agrees to renegotiate only when it's in the team's best interest to do so. If they refuse, the player's option is to sit out and default on his obligation and get paid ZERO until the contract expires.

Scenario 2: Player A tanks. Same two years, if Player A were signing a contract now he would not even be offered a contract, he's that bad. Does the team demand to renegotiate? No, they don't. They pay it because it's a contract. That's what contracts are.

Right, they pay when the contract requires it, and pay zero when the contract doesn't. For most players, that means if they signed a "$1 million" contract for that year, and they blow out their knee game 1, career ending, they'll be summarily released Monday morning, nothing more due under the contract than the 1/16th they earned through Sunday's game. Stars demand and GET better deals. It's negotiated. It's business.

These two scenarios play out in the sports world all the time, and each have become the norm. Why are we ok with one side being held to their contract... their word... and not the other side?

We're not - both sides are being held to the terms of the contract, nothing more or less.

Under your claims, in Scenario 2 the team would be justified in not paying the remaining three years because it's "just business". They're no longer getting what they paid for. They're "underwater", to use the mortgage analogy. Correct? Yes, if you're intellectually consistent, that will be your opinion.

Of course that's my position because if they can avoid paying the last few years, they will. And if the contract is guaranteed, limited only by the financial ability of the team to make good on the amount, the player will sue and win the balance due, maybe plus attorney's fees, maybe plus punitive damages. If the team thinks it can win that lawsuit, say they suspect the player hid an injury and the contract allows for default in the case of player misrepresentations, it will default and go to court. Morals enter into the decisions NOWHERE in the process on either side.

Or, in Scenario 1, you would favor the player sucking it up and honoring his contract as agreed to. Correct? Again yes, if you're intellectually honest, that will be your opinion.

Of course he has to honor his contract - he has no other option. He can try to negotiate a pay raise, and if that fails he has a choice, like we all do in our jobs. We can work for the amount agreed to, or quit. In the NFL, that means he can't sign with another NFL team and sits at home playing video games collecting no pay, but he has that choice like you have that choice and any high profile CEO for a Fortune 500 has that choice.

If you're not intellectually honest, you'll try to find some way for Player A to be able to weasel out of it and not be held to his end of the deal, while still expecting the team to be held to their end.

Nope. See above.
 
The player can demand to renegotiate all he wants - the team is under no obligation to do a thing. The team agrees to renegotiate only when it's in the team's best interest to do so. If they refuse, the player's option is to sit out and default on his obligation and get paid ZERO until the contract expires.



Right, they pay when the contract requires it, and pay zero when the contract doesn't. For most players, that means if they signed a "$1 million" contract for that year, and they blow out their knee game 1, career ending, they'll be summarily released Monday morning, nothing more due under the contract than the 1/16th they earned through Sunday's game. Stars demand and GET better deals. It's negotiated. It's business.



We're not - both sides are being held to the terms of the contract, nothing more or less.



Of course that's my position because if they can avoid paying the last few years, they will. And if the contract is guaranteed, limited only by the financial ability of the team to make good on the amount, the player will sue and win the balance due, maybe plus attorney's fees, maybe plus punitive damages. If the team thinks it can win that lawsuit, say they suspect the player hid an injury and the contract allows for default in the case of player misrepresentations, it will default and go to court. Morals enter into the decisions NOWHERE in the process on either side.



Of course he has to honor his contract - he has no other option. He can try to negotiate a pay raise, and if that fails he has a choice, like we all do in our jobs. We can work for the amount agreed to, or quit. In the NFL, that means he can't sign with another NFL team and sits at home playing video games collecting no pay, but he has that choice like you have that choice and any high profile CEO for a Fortune 500 has that choice.



Nope. See above.
I suspected you'd find a way to weasel it out, and you didn't disappoint. You go through a lot of mental gymnastics to still end up twisting in the wind. Regardless how you attempt to spin it, it is clear that you don't expect the same from both sides. Your lip service is not convincing.
 
The negotiated terms of a mortgage are to pay back the debt. There is no "I changed my mind and don't want to pay so take my house instead" option in the contract. There is no "repayment optional" clause. But we've been over this at length and this fact doesn't seem to phase you.

Sure there is - the loan document says, "These are our rights and borrower's obligations in the event of default" and one of those is foreclose on the house, sell it and keep the proceeds, another is to sue for the balance, etc. The lender agreed to those terms.
 
I suspected you'd find a way to weasel it out, and you didn't disappoint. You go through a lot of mental gymnastics to still end up twisting in the wind. Regardless how you attempt to spin it, it is clear that you don't expect the same from both sides. Your lip service is not convincing.

Well, you didn't address even one point and tell me where I'm wrong.

Bottom line is I don't "expect" anything. What I know for a fact is both sides ARE bound by the contract. And what I also KNOW for a fact is both sides WILL use the leverage they have to negotiate the best deal for their side. Morality has nothing to do with anything. Pretty simple and obvious stuff.
 
for the purposes of this discussion, your discussion, whether paying a debt is a moral obligation, both are instances of debt but not surprised you are unable to recognize that very obvious fact

You're conflating issues in a most ignorant fashion, there, Bubba. But if you want to pretend that, for the sake of this discussion, cell phone contracts and mortgage contracts are the same because there is money involved and there is a contract, so be it. I'll humor your ignorance along and we'll just go with that.

There is a cancellation option in your cell phone contract. If you cancel early and pay the option, you did nothing immoral. In a mortgage contract there is also an early cancellation option where you just pay the bank what you owe them and exit the contract without doing anything immoral. If you deadbeat either one of them, breaking the contract and failing to pay what you owe, it is IMMORAL rather than moral.

Pretending that you think defaulting on a loan is just taking advantage of a contract option is about as intellectually dishonest a pretense as there can be.
 
Sure there is - the loan document says, "These are our rights and borrower's obligations in the event of default" and one of those is foreclose on the house, sell it and keep the proceeds, another is to sue for the balance, etc. The lender agreed to those terms.

That isn't an option for you to decide to stop paying. It is an explanation of all the bad things that will happen to you for acting immorally and defaulting on your loan. I can't imagine how any honest person would assert those two things are the same for all intents and purposes. It's just not an honest position.
 
That isn't an option for you to decide to stop paying. It is an explanation of all the bad things that will happen to you for acting immorally and defaulting on your loan. I can't imagine how any honest person would assert those two things are the same for all intents and purposes. It's just not an honest position.

OK, is it moral to form as an LLC and borrow for the spec house through the LLC so you as owner can avoid repaying that loan? I've done returns for dozens of real estate investors and they have often have separate entities for each property, and if that property gets into financial trouble, they don't volunteer the assets of the other companies to pay off that debt - they have separate entities so the losses in one will not threaten all the others. It's the point of it all. Is that immoral?
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

Yes. But if it is beyond the person to pay then grace or forgiveness is needed. For example Greek debt is unrealistic. It can't be paid. It must be forgiven. At least most of it. Corporations go bankrupt all the time. So do individuals. Sometimes a nation defaults.

If it's unrealistic (the Greek debt) then it shouldnt have been loaned. I think that was more a political move personally.

However regarding grace or forgiveness, those are personal virtues and not to be expected from business or corporate entities. I have never heard of any contract that says, "and if the contractee cannot fulfill the terms of this contract in full faith because of hardship, then the contract is null and void."**

Yes, a business *can forgive a debt* they may have a policy for that, but that debt will be passed on to others who do business/have loans with that company.

**There is bankruptcy but that is thru the legal system, not the business. The business may still get some or all that's owed it after that process.
 
OK, is it moral to form as an LLC and borrow for the spec house through the LLC so you as owner can avoid repaying that loan?

Nope.

I've done returns for dozens of real estate investors and they have often have separate entities for each property, and if that property gets into financial trouble, they don't volunteer the assets of the other companies to pay off that debt - they have separate entities so the losses in one will not threaten all the others. It's the point of it all. Is that immoral?

It depends. If the purpose is actually to default on any property where the mortgage is higher than the property value without affecting other properties, then yes, it is immoral. I'm not sure that would work out so well, though. The type of behavior you are talking about would likely allow the mortgage company to go after the owner of the LLC and any assets he may have because what you are talking about is a sort of flow-through that would likely cause the court to find that the corporate veil can be pierced since the owner is, for all intents and purposes, the LLC.

But the bottom line is that if you intend to stick someone else with losses that you incurred just because you think you've got a legal way to do it then, from an ethical perspective, you are more corrupt than all the businesses I've worked for but one. Honorable people don't do that. Neither do honorable businesses.
 
Last edited:
Right but if I as an individual have moral responsibilities to fulfill my end of a loan contract, I can't avoid that by incorporating and having the "business" borrow money. The law respects that an LLC or corp is a separate entity from the owners for purposes of legal liability for loans and losses, but I can't imagine morality will follow the letter of the law and mandate repayment if an individual or sole proprietor but NOT if an LLC/LLP/Corporation, etc.

And that's my point - if you accept that 'businesses' are amoral and you appear to, then I see no reason why an individual on the opposite side of a contract with an amoral, profit maximizing 'business' has a uniquely moral duty with regard to that contract that the 'business' does not share. I think their "moral" obligations are identical - maximize profits.

One other point - conflating "cheating, fraud, and non-payment" is illegitimate. Remedies for default are outlined in the loan document that both parties agreed to, and there is no fraud for a party to default and accept those terms - lose the house, ruin credit, generally allow the lender to sue for any shortfall if the collateral is insufficient to pay the loan, perhaps a bankruptcy filing, etc.

I have spelled out how defaulting harms others doing business with the company and/or in that pool of users.

What you are talking about are the legitimate penalties a business may use to get its $$. Part of the business contract, amoral. (And you didnt assign any morality there, I'm just point it out). However that is not always the case and if there is nothing left to take, then again....the business model compensates by spreading out that loss among others.
 

OK, but the lender accepts that the assets of the LLC is sufficient collateral. Doesn't the lender have an obligation?

It depends. If the purpose is actually to default on any property where the mortgage is higher than the property value without affecting other properties, then yes, it is immoral.

Of course the purpose of separate LLCs is not to default - they buy property, take out a loan, to make money. But a primary reason to form as an LLC or corporation and not as a GP or sole proprietorship is to protect the owner's assets and to protect the owner's other business interests if and when the venture fails. LLCs exist so owners can act as general partners (run the business) but insulate themselves from liabilities of the business, and all 50 states authorize LLCs and they've ballooned in number from the first day they were approved in that state. Those LLC members are not immoral - they're making rational decisions to protect their personal assets from debts/losses and so converted their GPs to LLCs.

I'm not sure that would work out so well, though. The type of behavior you are talking about would likely allow the mortgage company to go after the owner of the LLC and any assets he may have because what you are talking about is a sort of flow-through that would likely cause the court to find that the corporate veil can be pierced since the owner is, for all intents and purposes, the LLC.

It might, but that's not a moral choice, that's a function of the law. If it's immoral to default on a debt, the owner must on his own disregard the liability protection and volunteer to pay debts he's legally allowed to avoid. If that was the case, he'd hold the property personally and avoid the headache of forming an LLC and filing separate returns, etc.

But the bottom line is that if you intend to stick someone else with losses that you incurred just because you think you've got a legal way to do it then, from an ethical perspective, you are more corrupt than all the businesses I've worked for but one. Honorable people don't do that. Neither do honorable businesses.

I'm not corrupt and have made many choices in my life that cost me money to maintain my integrity. I just don't agree that the world is black and white, or that defaulting on loans is presumed "immoral," any more than I believe breaking any other contract is immoral. I KNOW businesses are amoral creatures and we expect that - if they can save money by laying off 5,000 workers and moving a plant to China, they'll do it because their purpose is to maximize profits, etc. And as a general rule, I don't demand that individuals live to a higher moral standard than the businesses they enter into agreements with.
 
Last edited:
OK, but the lender accepts that the assets of the LLC is sufficient collateral. Doesn't the lender have an obligation?



Of course the purpose of separate LLCs is not to default - they buy property, take out a loan, to make money. But a primary reason to form as an LLC or corporation and not as a GP or sole proprietorship is to protect the owner's assets and to protect the owner's other business interests if and when the venture fails. LLCs exist so owners can act as general partners (run the business) but insulate themselves from liabilities of the business, and all 50 states authorize LLCs and they've ballooned in number from the first day they were approved in that state. Those LLC members are not immoral - they're making rational decisions to protect their personal assets from debts/losses and so converted their GPs to LLCs.



It might, but that's not a moral choice, that's a function of the law. If it's immoral to default on a debt, the owner must on his own disregard the liability protection and volunteer to pay debts he's legally allowed to avoid. If that was the case, he'd hold the property personally and avoid the headache of forming an LLC and filing separate returns, etc.



I'm not corrupt and have made many choices in my life that cost me money to maintain my integrity. I just don't agree that the world is black and white, or that defaulting on loans is presumed "immoral," any more than I believe breaking any other contract is immoral. I KNOW businesses are amoral creatures and we expect that - if they can save money by laying off 5,000 workers and moving a plant to China, they'll do it because their purpose is to maximize profits, etc. And as a general rule, I don't demand that individuals live to a higher moral standard than the businesses they enter into agreements with.

I expect everyone to do what is right and honest. I'm frequently disappointed, but I expect people to do what's right. I expect businesses to do what is right, too. And not one person who utilized a "strategic default" to duck an investment loss when they bought property is living up to the moral standard set by the bank that followed through on their end of the deal and cut the check. In these situations, there's only ONE party that is doing the immoral/unethical thing and it's not the bank. The bank lived up to it's obligation. You, the borrower, need to live up to yours.
 
I expect everyone to do what is right and honest. I'm frequently disappointed, but I expect people to do what's right. I expect businesses to do what is right, too. And not one person who utilized a "strategic default" to duck an investment loss when they bought property is living up to the moral standard set by the bank that followed through on their end of the deal and cut the check. In these situations, there's only ONE party that is doing the immoral/unethical thing and it's not the bank. The bank lived up to it's obligation. You, the borrower, need to live up to yours.

so, that bank, the one that made a loan so you could be upside down in a home by $30,000, is the more moral party
doesn't matter that your moral bank sold that potentially upside down loan to an investor to avoid risking the loss it anticipated because it had statisticians and economists on staff to better anticipate the economic downturn than you
and when you ponied up the additional $30,000 in the belief it was the moral thing to do, you aided an investor with whom you had no dealings and who held your Note without your approval or consideration
now, share with us what you got for that $30,000 you needlessly gave over to that secondary market investor
in short, you made a terrible business decision
could it be that you are trying to find some justification in order to salve that expensively bad business decision
 
I expect everyone to do what is right and honest. I'm frequently disappointed, but I expect people to do what's right. I expect businesses to do what is right, too. And not one person who utilized a "strategic default" to duck an investment loss when they bought property is living up to the moral standard set by the bank that followed through on their end of the deal and cut the check. In these situations, there's only ONE party that is doing the immoral/unethical thing and it's not the bank. The bank lived up to it's obligation. You, the borrower, need to live up to yours.

Did the bank live up to its obligation? Is it moral to swindle people?
 
Back
Top Bottom