The Practice Of Dishonest And Unethical Behavior
Readers suggested a topic on ethics and the housing bubble. “Looney Tunes Topic # 1:
1. Is it acceptable to be a ‘professional’ without being ‘ethical?’”
“How does the above question relate to the following people?”
Real estate agent
Escrow agent
Mortgage broker
Appraiser
Bank loan officer
2. What is the penalty if they are not ‘ethical?’”
A reply, “Relative to my former appraisal profession: There is/was no penalty for the practice of dishonesty and unethical behavior. The ‘re-fi’ party was ‘on,’ and the state review agencies turned a complete blind eye to complaints from honest people who’s businesses were being gutted and destroyed by the huge number of newly minted number hitters who sprang from the federal government’s brilliant scheme to license people.”
“Subsequently, I know a fair number of people in the appraisal profession who financially profiteered enormously off the last 5 years. WE are talking HS grads pullinn’ in $250k grosses, who controlled enormous marketse because they were the “go-to” number hitters and data fudgers. Never forget, that ALL of this breakdown evolved from LIES and CORRUPTION at the bottom of the feed chain!”
“Without the proper boxes checked; neighborhood quality narrative distorted; and quality/conditions of improvements fudged; the loans could never have passed underwriting and subsequent been sold to a Norway teachers pension fund.”
Another said, “It’s not as if an unethical person is sitting around saying “I want to be ethical!!” They don’t KNOW that they are unethical. They truly belive they’re right. In every war, both sides truly belive they are in the right, or else why would they fight?”
One posted, “Look at how turning a blind eye to transgressions by the REIC may have given an implicit go ahead to ethical trespass across the board. The most obvious are Madoff and Stanford. But we also have a perceptible increase in sleaziness in other sectors. My experience over the last five years has been that no one, wait, soak that in, NO ONE, selling me any thing or service can be trusted. And it goes without saying that our esteemed government representatives have anything but our best interests in mind.”
“I can only wonder how many other people are having the same experience.”
One suggested, “The punishment for not acting ethically is life imprisonment inside an unethical person.”
A reply, “That don’t look like nearly enough punishment to me. Unless, of course, the unethical outer shell is gettin’ its worthless as*s fed through a hay-baler.”
“Ahhh, hay-balers…it brings back the memories. When I was a wee lass I used to love how the organized little green bales would come po0ping out the back end all tidy and regular in long straight rows. I enjoyed sitting and watching. There was a timeless, patient, inevitable quality to it all. It was zen-like, really. Until something would go wrong and the whole trundling contraption would jerk to a halt and the little human servants would hop off cussin’ in a decidedly un-spiritual way…”
“* starts to sing ‘Memories’ loudly and zen-ishly *”
“How does the above question relate to the following people?”
Economist
Congressman
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-02-22 11:33:12
“How does the above question relate to the following people?”
Economist
Congressman
Probably the same category as some bloggers who sold high knowing they were selling to people who did not have a clue
The beauty of an arm’s length sale in a free enterprise economic system is that both sides of the market are blind to the other side’s motivations and beliefs. The seller in such a transaction has no idea whether the buyer is clueless, amply-informed or a sophisticated financier. And the buyer is similarly ignorant of the seller’s motives. Both sides enter the transaction of their own free will, and assume the risk that they are making a mistake. There is no need for coercion, deception or unethical behavior for the free market to accomplish its purpose of promoting mutual gains through trade between willing parties.
Given that you are equating the above with the kind of scam artistry recently on display by members of the REIC, I have to assume you are an ignoramus, a REIC apologist, or both.
“How does the above question relate to the following people?”
Economist
Congressman
Probably the same category as some bloggers who sold high knowing they were selling to people who did not have a clue
Our politicains and their REIC gang friends have the all of the ethics and morals of an adolescent GARDEN SNAIL
How about stock brokers or sooooo called Financial Consultants????
Buy and hold, dollar cost averaging, blahhhh, blahhh, blahh.
These are the worst of the gang!!!!!!! When was the last time one of these so called Professionals told you to sell,sell, sell????? How’s your 401k, oh, I’m 201 K????? Crooks, the lot of them.
Seems like everyone is ethical until they are called out.It is a real vague term just like professional.Everyone seems to be a professional these days.Aren’t there professional toilet cleaners?
Being ethical is not the same thing as following the law.
One can follow the letter of the law and be completely unethical. And the converse is also true, one can break the law and be very ethical.
‘one can break the law and be very ethical.’
I tell myself that Every. Single. Day.
It helps me sleep well at night.
* nods fluffly Olyhead virtuously *
One can follow the letter of the law and be completely unethical. And the converse is also true, one can break the law and be very ethical.
Excellent, and I’ll go you one further: In a legal system deliberately rigged to reward crooks and cheats, the only way you can *be* ethical is to break the law at least occasionally. Is our system broadly at that point yet? You be the judge.
Quite a few people have already dropped out of the system and are living “off the grid”, so to speak. The daily bailouts of the rich at my expense are forcing me to reconsider my positions re: “tax rebellions” and other pet causes of the tinfoil-hat crowd.
Ethics aren’t vague; just subjective. Which is why I think a discussion of the ethics of the folks involved is somewhat a waste of time.
“(N)o one . . . selling me any thing or service can be trusted.” Ditto. For at least the past decade, it seems the biggest rewards have gone to the biggest liars. They’ve high-fived it all around, “Boiler Room”-like, laughing at the rubes, wallowing in excess or, shall I say, “extreme” this or that. Well, I really think– or hope– that they have finally killed the proverbial goose that laid the golden eggs.
I took a little heat from some mild flames when I posted not long ago that I would trust an illegal doing backbreaking labor long before I’d trust any gel-haired punk with cuff links pushing the latest financial “product” from “The Street.” I stand by this, though, and think alot of regular joes like me feel the same way. I long for the day when this feeling grows to the point where it leaves all the broker-types looking for some low- paying, honest work. Nobody will notice how good or bad their manicures are at that point.
“I took a little heat from some mild flames when I posted not long ago that I would trust an illegal doing backbreaking labor long before I’d trust any gel-haired punk with cuff links pushing the latest financial “product” from “The Street.”
I wouldn’t trust either one, but that’s just me.
Integrity and brains in a man under thirty are commodities which can be mortgaged. After that age there is no counting on a man.
O. de Balzac
Is it not “H” de Balzac? And I resemble that remark…
Isn’t it so true that the biggest liars always win. For example, Obama does not bail out the irresponsible investors in his newest housing plan. I was honest and did not lie on my mortgage application when I bought my rental. In comparison to so many investors who claimed they would live in the house and now participate in the bailout.
What a country…
You just cannot win here with honesty.
I know I always win with honesty.
I act to do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
Not a preach. There are many humble people that follow the do the right thing for the sake of doing it - I’m joyous to know of many honest ones.
Humble ones in the days of dark are a beaming ray of light.
Best,
Leigh
Just sayin…seems the guy just started his term, not everything is solid, and yet you or others seemed to give W a wide wide berth and 28 % still back the man and his ill begotten ideas a long long 8 yrs later.
Jes sayin..
Here’s a silver lining: Wells Fargo will be folding the old Wachovia Securities into the Wells fargo brokerage in May. however, Wells will not be awarding retention bonus pay to the 14,600 brokers from Wachovia Securities.
I think it’s more likely that several thousand of the Wachovia brokers will get pink slips instead.
Now that’s justice!
Ethics aside, when I read this yesterday I thought: Mortgage fraud has a 10 year statute of limitations federally. While only a small fraction will ever be prosecuted, that’s a long time to worry about someone finding out what you did or dropping a dime on you. Better hope you aren’t involved in a messy divorce, civil suit, tax problem or anything that draws the attention of law enforcement.
I find it interesting how unethical activity in one area can really screw things up in another area of one’s life. The media let loose on Gary Condit like a howling pack of dogs, when it turns out that the real murderer of Chandra Levy is an illegal immigrant from Central America. Condit, however, opened himself up to this on two fronts: one, having an affair with Levy and two, not standing up to illegal immigration on behalf of his constituents. Karma is a real b*tch. And of course Bill Clinton had a little lesson in the importance of ethical behaviour, too, though I’m not sure he could connect cause and effect.
“Condit, however, opened himself up to this on two fronts: one, having an affair with Levy…”
Fine squeeze doesn’t like being turned down, and there’s no second offer. If she offers you her honor, you better honor her offer!
Ah, but I can hardly imagine an administration, and certainly not the current administration, ever going after people for this - after all, they’ve still got trillions of dollars to spend, an entire nation’s future to mortgage, and a second term to run for!
No, you could walk into the FBI with a well documented, 100% bulletproof case of mortgage fraud, and unless it’s a large group of homes and there is a bank loudly complaining about the fraud to a congressman whose campaigns it funds, I have a hard time imagining it would be prosecuted.
I see that Dodd (dem) is going to refi the less than market rate mtg he got from Countrywide who gave him big $ in contributions. Obama also got a $1.6 mil lower interest rate loan as well revolving around the Resco thingie. Will he refi?Don’t hold your breath. They’re all crooks and should be perp walked to the slammer.
But you don’t expect mortgage fraud to be REWARDED either!
There’s no provisions in this plan to check for accuracy in mortgage applications before renegotiating mortgages for people who qualify (conforming mortgage with more than 31% of AGI going to service it).
I think in order to qualify for handouts of this magnitude (individual specu-vestors will reap rewards of $50,000 or more!) you should be able to stand up to an IRS audit and a verification of the statements on your original mortgage application.
Because the banks would see alot of their folks go under the bus so they don’t or won’t allow that to happen, protectin their own, so to speak. Unless it is really really big and you can find a good schnook tiny putz scapegoat that can’t protect himself or isn’t well connected.
That is why ‘you’ won’t see any massive fraud investigations. It will have to be big enough, like you said, big developments.
“heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.” Congreve -1697.
Boy oh boy, nothing like a messy divorce, or even rejection in love for all the skeletons to come raging out of the closet.
Actually, now that I think about it, what’s even funnier is that the MSM, when doing mortgage bailout stories, NEVER asks little Johnny or grandma what they listed on their mortgage/refi/cash-out paperwork. Think that’s by accident?
One suggested, “The punishment for not acting ethically is life imprisonment inside an unethical person.”
I have a Fantastic idea. A few years back, Raquel Welch overstated her residuals in order to land her Hollywood Hills tri-level. Now she’s underwater and looking to refi into a pair of balloon mortgages. But that ain’t going to happen in this sagging market. In lieu of foreclosure, I think she should be shrunk down and injected into Dick Fuld’s bloodstream. Any thoughts on this?
Luv,
Jen
Raquel’s balloons are sagging? And you want to shrink her and expose her to dick?
You’ve gotta be kidding me??!!!!
I was watching some of her old movies - she was one bad mama
That was the best great play on words I’ve read in a long time.
Thank you Jen
Jen…Is this a trick question…seriously
The term professional should always make one become even more vigilant about the prospect of being taken. Sociologists have shown that occupations often construct collective bodies, such as professional associations (e.g., the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Sociological Association). These collective bodies work to carve out areas of work to monopolize. So, for example, the AMA argues it would be unconscionable to allow a woman in any civilized society to give birth at home. She must do so under anesthesia in a hospital.
(Sociologists make the same kind of argument about understanding society and developing policy — clearly, they have had less success with this strategy than some other occupations.)
By making such cases, easily made with a few anecdotal examples of horrible outcomes from home births (as if hospitals never produce the unavoidable horrible outcome), the professional association convinces the powers that be that to protect women births should be taken out of homes and out of the hand of midwives and moved into hospitals with doctors and anesthesia. Once the occupation has successfully monopolized the service, the status of members of the occupation goes up (e.g., every new mother loves the doctor who delivers her baby!), the cost of the service goes up, and that’s that.
It’s even easier if one is dealing with something that has no clear material limit. I mean, doctors cannot deliver babies that are not conceived (naturally or artificially), and they cannot deliver twins if only one baby is in the womb. Lawyers, on the other hand, conceive the laws, write the laws, then implement the laws. WHAT A SCAM! Sure, some laws are required. But, why is the tax code as complex as it is? Who do you think profits from the thousands of pages in the code?
So, professional associations do the following:
1)Seek out areas of work to monopolize
2)Fight off others who seek to do the same work (e.g., midwives)
To do this, the association claims:
1)The work is so complex only specialists (i.e., US) can judge it.
2)Thus, look, we have this “Code of Ethics” which we will enforce, to assure the public is not taken.
Yet, one can count on one hand the number of “professionals” who are sanctioned in any year, by ALL the professional associations in the U.S. put together — and still have fingers and a thumb left over.
So, of course, calling oneself a professional is a SCAM. But, it is a successful scam. So, lots of occupations try it. Some succeed royally. Others, not so much.
Therefore, when it comes to trust — if one is dealing with a real professional occupation, one should just become even more concerned about being taken.
And that’s my (professional) opinion. (I’m trained as a sociologist — clearly, a self-critical one, but there you have it).
IAT
Lawyers, on the other hand, conceive the laws, write the laws, then implement the laws. WHAT A SCAM!
Ah, warms the cockles of my alleged heart.
Good points, IAT.
This is good!
Initial response to Obama’s plans to keep homedebtors paying a reduced mortgage has received a cool response from the 3% of the population that Obama’s plan seeks to entice with $250 billion of tax payer dollars. “Just $1000 per year is simply offensive” said one mortgage reduction recipient.”
The new president’s administration is reacting quickly to this news and has feverishly been working on additional incentives. Stating “There is no way we are going to allow these important people to sink into foreclosure.”
Corporate sponsors have offered to kick-in and help. Pizza Hut will offer 2 free pizzas per week to the chosen few for as long as they continue to pay their new reduced mortgage payments. Wal-mart will offer free oil changes every 3000 miles and a weekly 10% off coupon. Supercuts will give half price hair cuts.
Communities are going to pitch in as well. The Boy Scouts will give free car washes every Saturday to those receiving tax payer funded mortgage reductions. The Girl Scouts will clean houses twice per week in an effort to keep those payments flowing. Scouting representative said Scouts will get a merit badge for every mortgagee they entice to stay current on their mortgage for a year.
Still, reactions are tepid at best from the mortgage reduction crowd, dubbed “The 3%”. They counter that cold hard cash talks louder than free car washes or free maid service and weekly pizzas. A spokesperson for the 3% said they hope to iron out a new revised amount of $10,000 per year with the Obama administration soon. They are also requesting more corporate contributions.
Said the 3% spokesperson:
“This will not be easy for our members to pay the reduced mortgages on time each and every month, but we are committed to doing our part provided the Government gets realistic about the incentive compensation”.
The nation’s renter population has a different issue with Obama’s plan. Renters are familiar with the struggle of paying more than 31% of your income for housing.
A spokesperson for the American Renters Assoc. had this to say;
“As renters we are all too familiar with paying 38%, 40% or 50% of your family’s income on housing. Landlords are not known for being the most charitable members of society. These unfortunate folks, “The 3%”, should not be burdened with paying 31% of their income on their reduced mortgages; we would like to see that reduced to a max of 25%.”
“Just $1000 per year is simply offensive”
If the potential recipient is so offended by the terms, (s)he can always reject the refinance and either;
1. Continue to pay the exiting mortgage obligation, or
2. Give up the house to foreclosure.
I don’t see a problem.
(* Replied before reading the whole post and realising it’s satire. *)
Maybe with all the screaming that is occuring against this bailout for homeowners, perhaps the entire thing will be scrapped or adjusted or not put into effect for some time.
And as one poster mentioned yesterday, perhaps O and the people that claim to know everything already know nothing will actually be done.
“How does the above question relate to the following people?”
Real estate agent - Since a lot of the skills are “soft”, being ethical would seem to be a big part of being professional. I would argue that during the bubble, many agents were neither.
Mortgage broker - If one isn’t ethical, activities could quickly end up being fraudulent. It’s quite obvious during the bubble years that not only was unethical behavior rampant, so was fraud. A professional should know enough about the finances and plans of the borrower to recommend the best loans for the borrower, not those with the highest commissions.
Appraiser - It would seem that if they aren’t ethical, then much of what they would do would be fraudulent.
Bank loan officer - Approving loans outside generally accepted guidelines (not the non-existent bubble standards) I would consider unprofessional, unethical, and quite possibly fraudulent.
If many of these jobs were compensated through flat fees rather than commissions, would more if not much of the fraud and unethical behavior go away?
I’m sorry but implying that RE agents are of the professional class is downright abuse of the english lexicon. In NY state, professional is a legal term. In order to be considered a professional in NY, you or your firm must be registered with the dept of law or depart of state in NY, self insured or bonded.
It is unfair to any of these folks to call them unethical in an environment in which you cannot practice your trade and be ethical. If every sale is going to be undercut by an unethical competitor, then you have no choice but to abandon your trade or your ethics. When abandoning your trade can mean putting yourself & family into poverty, while doing absolutely no good for society the choice becomes sadly easy.
To play on a thought, “I’m not ethical, I cheat everyone equally!”
“I’m not un-ethical, I cheat everyone equally!”
I believe that most everyone plain forgot that the entire strategy of commissioned sales people is to compel their target to let their defenses down, even just long enough to get them to sign.
Think about it. Everyone one of these schemers, fraudsters and scandals hitting the MSM are individuals and businesses that depend on the end user saying yes and signing the dotted line. Yeah, I’m stating the obvious but it seems so many view these sharks as harmless, even when those same people aren’t engaged in transactions with said sharks. I contend that bystanders who said nothing or apologized with some stupid phrase like “they’re just doing business” are just as guilty as the shiny suited salesman.
Society has a whole has been infected by the rise of moral relativism. People can rationalize just about any kind of behavior as long as they percieve it as advancing their interests or desires. Mainstream religion has stagnated into irrelevance, since there are so few clerics who actually believe in moral absolutes, much less preach them. It makes me wonder how much longer democracy can survive in this country.
Ethics:
1. A set of principles of right conduct.
2. A theory or a system of moral values.
3. The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
4. The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.
Morality:
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Pretty tough operation, separating ethics and morals. Moral relativism? Unless we are all agreed on the ideas of right conduct, all morals are relative. Is there absolute morality? Afraid each of us has to decide morality for ourselves. I personally feel that my morals and ethics are far better than those of certain evangelists who are sure they know what’s right for everyone and want to tell us how to act and think.
Morals vs Ethics = Right Action.
Not so funny thing about G*d ones.
So pious.
Therein lies the clue.
Holier than thou.
Then they burn you at the stake.
Beware and mindful.
Leigh
Is it still alive today?
When the media decides the outcome of elections by selective reporting, I don’t believe our current system can be fairly characterized as democracy. The people of the U.S., assisted by a press and educational corps that thinks the cold war was won by the wrong side, have devolved to rats in a maze, pressing the button that they think will give them the cheese.
Our system is not a democracy. It is a republic. Our system was designed to insure a small group of hopefully educated and altruistic individuals have the power to select who among the candidates for offices will receive the funding necessary to win that office.
There is no question that the rats in the maze should ever be given any actual choice over the matter. To them are given the stately matters of gay marriage and Sunday beer sales.
In the immortal words of Dr. Frank-N-Furter, “Don’t Dream it, Be It.” 30 years later, we get “The Secret”.
Were people more “moral” back in the “good old days” of (literal) witch hunts, public lynchings, slavery, debtor’s prisons, institutional racism/sexism, pogroms, and various holy wars against competing religions or religious sects (many of them Christians, btw)?
If you want to pine for the wonderful Christian “ethics” of the Middle Ages (or even the pre-Civil War era), fine, but I’ll pass on that, thank you. I like things like freedom of speech & assembly, separation of Church and State, habeas corpus, not being literally enslaved to my employer and or creditors, etc.
1809 Freshman Philosophy class called - they want their Introduction to chapter 1 back.
WE are talking HS grads pullinn’ in $250k grosses, who controlled enormous marketse because they were the “go-to” number hitters and data fudgers. Never forget, that ALL of this breakdown evolved from LIES and CORRUPTION at the bottom of the feed chain!”
When the banks held the mortgages and needed to be paid survive, the “appraisal professional” were hard-ass and very unforgiving. If they appraised a house too high and it defaulted, it was their job on the line.
It comes down to who signs the paycheck.
Hi, 2 banana. This is dec31,1999.
Financial Times
US mortgages shake-up raises lawsuit fears
By Saskia Scholtes in New York
Published: February 22 2009 22:44 | Last updated: February 22 2009 22:44
The US government’s plan to pay mortgage servicers for modifying troubled home loans could expose servicers to a new breed of lawsuit from disgruntled mortgage investors, say industry insiders.
Servicers who respond to the government incentives could be accused of easing the terms of mortgages in order to collect the payment rather than because a modification was in the investors’ best interest, lawyers and restructuring experts said.
“Servicers who respond to the government incentives could be accused of easing the terms of mortgages in order to collect the payment rather than because a modification was in the investors’ best interest, lawyers and restructuring experts said.”
But if the borrower is still locked into payments that are greater than what would otherwise be supported by the market if the property went through foreclosure and was resold at the market price, it’s hard to see how the investors have been harmed. At a minimum it would seem, more income comes in for a longer period of time, even if the property eventually goes into foreclosure.
Lawd!
Sue.
Oh, Sue.
Oh Suezeeeee que baybee I’ll sue you.
I like the way you walk.
I like the way you talk - oh - sue.
Surely,
I’ll sue you.
Ya just can’t make this stuff up!
Leigh
Wall Street Journal
* REAL ESTATE
* FEBRUARY 20, 2009
The Hamptons Half-Price Sale
Prices for opulent weekend homes are slashed, but still fail to attract bidders
By LUCETTE LAGNADO
Bridgehampton, N.Y.
At first glance it’s a gated mansion worthy of a Gilded Age: more than 14,000 square feet with eight bedrooms, 9½ bathrooms, five fireplaces, a pool, a pond, a tennis court and ocean views all nestled amid fields perfect for lavish summer parties.
Built on spec, this property was offered for sale in 2006 for $24.95 million. Today? Try $12.95 million — and even that lower price hasn’t yet lured a buyer. The mansion is now being sold at auction as part of a bankruptcy plan by the developer’s firm. The manse stands unfinished, forlorn and uninhabited.
“Tragic,” says Andrew Saunders, owner of real-estate agency Saunders & Associates, who adds the house would have sold in 2006 if it had been finished or priced less aggressively. “It was not overpriced. He got caught in economic times,” counters A. Mitchell Greene, an attorney for the developer.
“The manse stands unfinished, forlorn and uninhabited.”
The Fall of the House of Flipper
Maybe with all the screaming that is occuring against this bailout for homeowners, perhaps the entire thing will be scrapped or adjusted or not put into effect for some time.
And as one poster mentioned yesterday, perhaps O and the people that claim to know everything already know nothing will actually be done.
Hope this posts this time.
““Tragic,” says Andrew Saunders”
Tragedy is when children starve to death, or Andrew Saunders attempts to use the English language. When a business plan fails, it is called a “market”.
This would be a good time for a few dozen comments about tragedy and Andrew Saunders momma.
A one-week drop of 6.2 percent occurs at an annualized rate of
((1-0.062)^52-1)*100 = -96.4 percent.
Wall Street Journal
* TODAY’S MARKETS
* FEBRUARY 22, 2009, 7:49 P.M. ET
More Bank Misery Sinks Stocks
Efforts to Snuff Out Nationalization Talk Ease Selling, but Fears Remain
By PETER A. MCKAY
The stock market flirted with its dotcom-era low but trimmed its losses to miss that mark on Friday, capping an otherwise dismal week in which fears of nationalization of major U.S. banks gripped trading floors around the world.
New assurances that nationalization is not in the cards helped the market a bit Friday afternoon. But the matter looms large in the minds of many investors who wonder whether circumstances will eventually dictate a change of plans.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was off almost 220 points at its intraday trough, which put it slightly below its closing low set in October 2002 after the Internet bubble burst. It ended down 100.28 points, off 1.3%, at 7365.67, less than 80 points above the 2002 low.
On the week, the Dow industrials declined by 6.2%, the worst weekly decline since the week of October 10, 2008, when the Dow fell by a harrowing 18%.
Japan’s Nikkei drops 1.4% in early minutes
Credit crunch may only have just begun, S&P warns
By Alistair Barr, MarketWatch
Last update: 5:18 p.m. EST Feb. 20, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The credit crunch may only be in its early stages and a bigger contraction in lending in coming months could have “serious implications” for the U.S. economy, Standard & Poor’s Rating Services said Friday.
While politicians and others have complained that banks aren’t lending, the data on credit outstanding credit in the U.S. only tenuously supports this idea, the rating agency said. See related story.
“What’s behind the apparent difference between perception and reality?” Standard & Poor’s credit analyst Tanya Azarchs said. “It may be that, while growth in overall credit was positive through at least third-quarter 2008, it has risen at a slower pace than at any time since 1945 — far below the 8%-10% rate in most years.”
31% of gross income - I still don’t think people are going to be able to afford that on their mortgage payment alone and, you know, eat and
stuff.
31% of - nothing.
Many are not in this Statistic.
The question is - how many are and at what level of wealth? (No, I do not know).
Leigh