I see your point about personal responsibility and I agree with it, I only want to extend that to lenders.

Ever walked away from the “lending table”? I have. The terms had skewed in the last minute from the “deal” that had been agreed upon during the laborious paper work sessions. The fine print had altered the terms and I walked. End of story.

Protection, yes! Like those insurance payments every month just in case something goes terribly wrong. How is possibly the largest asset purchase of your life to be treated with such disregard? The fees paid to my attorney were less than a mortgage payment and worth every nickel given the scenario above. I agree that you should be able to purchase a home without an attorney, however, lawyering up in the beginning is sometimes a prudent alternative to lawyering up when you get in trouble as you say.

It should be comprised of ethical people but there are those that tarnish the industry much like many other avenues . The RIT photo program, for instance, has had in the past two years the two largest incoming freshman classes. Reason? No portfolio reviews for entrance. If you’ve got the cash c’mon up to Rochester! What kind of ethical practices are in place here allowing anyone with enough cash to enter a creative program with no expectations of the ability to perform in such a program. I only use this example as it is familiar to me. Would an applicant be accepted to a physics program without any credentials of past or potential performance in the discipline?

To be clear, I am not placing blame on those that have found themselves in a horrible situation, nor does my skepticism of the system deserve to be elevated to the status of facilitator of unethical business practices in this particular industry.

It’s good that you can afford to protect yourself. I reject the notion that others should not be allowed to buy a home if they cannot keep a lawyer on retainer or get one otherwise. I think that is a bit myopic. For most people, the only time they need a lawyer is if they get in trouble. Having a legal standard in place will eliminate the need for everyone to have, as you put it, “their own scumbag.” I don’t want to live in that scenario. Lawyering up is a recipe for exorbitant costs and gridlock.

It is unreasonable to expect the average American to get a lawyer for something that should be comprised of ethical people, such as buying a home. The costs of said purchase argument is not valid, to address your next response.

Cost is secondary because all business should have standards.

It’s not foolish for you to have a lawyer. It is unfair to blame others for listening to supposedly ethical information.

I have not given up, simply protecting myself in the interim.

Is that foolish?

We must demand ethics in business. Your approach is certainly going to protect you but it means you’ve given up on corporate responsibility. I demand more from business than that.

As Massa said in the press conference today, “those guys knew what they were doing.” Again, we must demand responsibility in business.

I don’t, hence, my scumbag.

Again Robert Kuttner is very good on this. You should read his articles in The American Prospect or read his just published book The Squandering of America: How the Failure of Our Politics Undermines Our Prosperity Many if all the protections put into place to ban predatory financial and lending practices, and limiting banks participation in financial services have been repealed. We are back in a situation much like that before the Great Depression. For example the Gramm-Leach Bliley passed in 1999 fostered deregulation of banking services. The act repealed the Glass-Steagall act, a new deal era act (1940) which restricted the entry of banks into financial services. Banks had been able to provide some investment and financial services; these had to be kept separate from banking. This practice however was being circumvented in the 1990’s by the merger of Citibank with Traveler’s Insurance and other mergers. The act codified and legitimized these practices, and in addition allowed the financial service industry to introduce wide ranging changes in service
Again the individual is not responsible for this. Silly jeremiads about the individual fail to get at the abdication of public oversight by government and non-responsible behavior by corporations.

Second employees of such financial institutions are encouraged to sell financial services and risky loans since they bring profits (or so they think) to companies. Were companies responsible in giving advice to customers or did they like many brokers exaggerate or lie about consequences. Perhaps simply because of irrational exuberance the folks selling the stuff believe their own propaganda. Again if we banned all these practices in the first place we wouldn’t be in this mess
.

Also, if you think that Joe Schmoe really understands an 86 page mortgage document, you’re kidding yourself. People sign them based on their trust in the system.

Finally, I just re-financed and had to pay 1/2 point to the gov’t to help bail out these companies that were floating crazy loans. Ticked me off.

Still the point is Lenders do this all the time - borrowers don’t. Yes, they should know more but they don’t.

There should be a more likelihood of the lender knowing more than the borrower.

Financial advisors don’t write the fine print, attorneys do.