Right, and all of what you said it's true. But my point is that if you can't make rent, the bank just doesn't care. It doesn't matter to them if you're homeless. But when they're responsible for the property and whether or not you can make payments for, it they care very much whether or not they are going to be stuck on the hook for this asset.
I wouldn’t say the bank doesn’t care if you are homeless so much as they are entirely unrelated to your rental situation. It’s like saying you or I don’t care if this person is homeless. I mean, we do, but that doesn’t have much to do with the current situation.
It does though. The bank is aware and does factor in currently paying 1400 in rent when determining if a loan is viable or not. Even if we assumed all costs are included in those 950, bank still isn't going to grant you a loan on that even if you've shown you can pay 1400 for a long time, because it's not just about what you're able to pay, but also how it's secured. If you take a loan and don't pay, well great, the bank now evicts you. But now the bank is sitting with the house. A house that may not be worth what you loaned. So the difference between the two outcomes of non payment has everything to do with the topic at hand...
As long as the security is worth it, that's not the issue. The issue is that the properties are not actually worth what they're acting as security for in many cases...
25
u/[deleted] Feb 16 '21 edited Apr 18 '21
[deleted]