$379,900 in Amherst

[WNYresident]

lefty

The time to tell people they couldn't afford the home was before they were given a loan not after.

The reason the government didn't go after the banks is that they were in bed with the banks via 'regulations' and didn't want to be exposed to the fallout. If the government stayed out of the housing business, or at least didn't force feed sh*tty buyers into it, they would have been able to watch the banks adjust from the sidelines. But the truth is there would not have been a bubble to begin with.

But we have people running for office that believe everyone has the right to a home regardless of your income.

[Member 2358]

...

The time to tell people they couldn't afford the home was before they were given a loan not after.

...

Who? Who "should have" told the borrower/customer? Who is it that you say was to tell the customer 'you shouldn't buy this money'?

[WNYresident]

Who? Who "should have" told the borrower/customer? Who is it that you say was to tell the customer 'you shouldn't buy this money'?

I think various elected officials should be held at fault. It was my understanding that "government" sort of forced banks to give loans to questionable buyers. Your credit score isn't that great but here is your mortgage. I talked to someone yesterday who explained how his mortgage process was flawed but then when you listen to what happened I think both were at fault. Buyer and the mortgage lender.

I know people who make $75k plus a year and they are constantly broke. A few tweaks on how they manage their life would make a world of difference.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Who? Who "should have" told the borrower/customer? Who is it that you say was to tell the customer 'you shouldn't buy this money'?

The bank. The bank should have the right to decide who they want to loan money to based on their risk profile. That's not only a good way to ensure risky loans don't happen but it's also the only way you can say to a bank you should go down without a helping hand based on the risks you took on your own.

[Member 2358]

The bank. The bank should have the right to decide who they want to loan money to based on their risk profile. That's not only a good way to ensure risky loans don't happen but it's also the only way you can say to a bank you should go down without a helping hand based on the risks you took on your own.

Ah. OK. Got it. I misread your earlier statement to mean that the banks foremost responsibility was to "counsel" money buyers about what they should/shouldn't buy. I do not think that's their place. I do, however, think it is their place to do the right thing (unimpeded by over-regulation) for themselves.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Ah. OK. Got it. I misread your earlier statement to mean that the banks foremost responsibility was to "counsel" money buyers about what they should/shouldn't buy. I do not think that's their place. I do, however, think it is their place to do the right thing (unimpeded by over-regulation) for themselves.

I don't think there should be anyone who has the responsibility counsel a buyer on when purchasing a home. At least to the point where they would hold some liability. If someone wants to hire counsel that's fine but it's not their responsibility to deliver an outcome.