 Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby
I don't see any problem with lenders yanking HELOCs before they can be exploited if there is a legitimate basis for believing that house values in a particular area are on the decline. It's only good lending discipline. Would anyone here prefer the opposite, namely, loose lending that puts the bank at risk? Why should the bank be the one to tolerate the risk, especially if doing so funds a lifestyle choice that might preclude the borrower from ever paying it back?
In previous times, HELOCs could be used for home improvements or other expenses where there were assets that could be levied upon for repayment. In other words, there were more restrictions on their use. True, banks shouldn't be in the business of approving how people spend money -- but only if it is THEIR money. Until the bank actually loans the money, it is the bank's money, and the bank has a right to make sure it can be repaid.
|
I disagree, I think once the customer has been APPROVED for the loan, why yank it because market conditions have changed? Regardless of the "abuse" we are debating, how has the lender been "wronged"? they still got extra interest, and if things go really haywire, they still have a secured loan 
I think unsecured debt is more risky than secured debt, but that's just me........ 
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)
This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
|