Recently, therefore, there has been talk of mortgages on mortgages and their pitfalls. This – not to mention a mortgage failure – does not affect banks as much as a customer, although techniques recently introduced undoubtedly cause many to pepper under the noses of financial institutions.
A bank may eventually lose some money
Whatever the case, no matter how much one locks his car, he doesn’t take care of his engine or look at his truck when he sees that the bank is taking it away from him anyway, a bank may eventually lose some money from one of hundreds of thousands of customers. customer has only one car, truck, etc. loses it.
When we write about movables, a customer loses his only car, etc., which can even be a work tool, what if the debtor loses his house over his head and goes wherever he sees his family, office, shop?
The question is, who is wrong with such mortgages? The customer who took out the loan even though you knew you wouldn’t be able to repay it? The bank that lured customers into a mortgage that it couldn’t repay? Or both?
Probably both the client and the bank
The debtor did not assess his situation well, of course, who can say today what will happen to him in 10 years or even 30 years? After all, repayment of a mortgage can take up to 30-35 years. Critical voices say – and somewhat rightly so – if someone has no secure income (of course nobody has ever since Communism thank God), why borrow? Why do you want to stretch beyond what your blanket is worth? And there really is something to it, of course, each case is unique.
Banks’ bad lending practices are being talked about these days that it is a pity to deal with them in particular. But some seem to have done nothing wrong: in the first year after the outbreak, banks gave more bonuses to executives than last year when there was no crisis.
There is someone who finances: ourselves. If some of them are making all kinds of rude statements, who would be amazed? When executives of banks rescued with public money take out money that would be a serious item even in a state budget? Unfortunately, this is our destiny. first we pay the bankers a loan, then when they go bankrupt because of all their stupidity and hunger, then the debtors back then support the banks as taxpayers, which they pay twice: as a debtor and as a taxpayer.
What do they get in return?
Lower interest rates? Flexible judging? Eviction? Unilateral contract modification? Everyone can underline the list of people they’ve met several times. Unfortunately, as long as the state allows the bankers to loot and then pass on the consequences of their sins to the debtors, because there are such concentrations that the world economy can really collapse, there is nothing to do.