4 ms·

> To be fair even if it literally is 100% reflective of reality that doesn't mean it lacks unjust feedback loops. if you're worried about feedback loops, maybe

> To be fair even if it literally is 100% reflective of reality that doesn't mean it lacks unjust feedback loops. if you're worried about feedback loops, maybe don't lend based on any criteria other than the best possible estimate of ability to pay the loan back. if you loan somebody money for a house that they can't pay back, they're going to 1) end up with even worse credit and 2) lose the house, which they made other emotional and financial investments in.

vkou 8y ago
Or, alternatively, 3) - they sell the house for a profit, and everyone (who matters) wins. The assumption of 3) was what drove 2008.
beat 8y ago
So how do you measure "the best possible estimate of ability to pay the loan back"? Because I think that broad assumption is a lot more complex and interesting than a simple FICO score. For a crude example, pick health history. The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills due to a health crisis. This of course spills over into mortgage foreclosure. But someone might have excellent credit, and a high cancer risk. They get cancer, byebye loan. Are you accounting for that? Someone has excellent credit, but works in a dying industry and has no skills to move to an equal-paying job in another industry. Their job goes away in five years, byebye mortgage. I can go on with these. But my point is, I don't know if you realize just what a difficult point you're making with your simple answer.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Likewise, if you watch "Abacus, Small enough to Jail," you can see an Asian community bank president talking about lending to small business owners because he can go to their restaurant and see how crowded it is, all the time. There are actual 50-something Chinese businessmen who make over a million a year but who work 80+ hour weeks and man their own forklift to save on money. There are people with little empires of alternative health businesses, who keep some large portion of their money in the proverbial mattress because they've had experiences in the past where a different government confiscated their or a friend's holdings, and there are some people like that who try to apply for loans by sending in screenshots of their bank's web apps.
  - beat 8y ago
    And banking industry consolidation has cut into those community ties that can change lending patterns. If we want to do something with regulatory policy, I'd think trying to keep banks small and local would be a fine start.
    - T2_t2 8y ago
      How did smaller banks fare during the crisis? I think that's the issue at the heart of whether encouraging them or not. I think the problem with using money lending as a tool for social justice and equality was laid bare during the crisis. The downsides - lack of mobility for workers, pushing the risk from wealthy people (investors) to poorer people and the fact to function the system needs loans to be paid back at some percentage approaching 100 - all conspire to make this a really poor tool for change. I think that something like the Australian approach - with enforced retirement savings set at 9% of income (where you earn $50K, and your employer pays $4.5K into super) - is a saner approach to wealth creation for the poorer groups than lumbering them with mortgages.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        I think the problem with using money lending as a tool for social justice and equality was laid bare during the crisis. There's a big difference between a community bank using community ties as a source of superior intelligence, and a big company acting as a mortgage mill trying to maximize throughput "countrywide" until the bubble bursts. Before the community banks existed, Asian community groups would arrange private lending within the community. I think that something like the Australian approach - with enforced retirement savings set at 9% of income (where you earn $50K, and your employer pays $4.5K into super) - is a saner approach to wealth creation for the poorer groups than lumbering them with mortgages. It sounds good on the surface. I'd let people opt-in on that, though.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        I think the problem with using money lending as a tool for social justice And equality was paid bair during the crisis That’s not what happened. It wasn’t poor people who caused most of the defaults - it was investors working with mortgage brokers, real estate agents, and appraisers who were all part of the take. Poor people weren’t doing most of the no doc/negative interest or other types of “non conforming mortgages”. The investors walked away, did strategic defaults, and were free and clear within 3 years - ask me how I know....
jhayward 8y ago
> if you're worried about feedback loops, maybe don't lend based on any criteria other than the best possible estimate of ability to pay the loan back. That is itself the tightest of feedback loops, because the best estimator is either current wealth, or past performance of loans. It is massively exclusionary so I don't think your point is very well made.

vkou 8y ago

Or, alternatively, 3) - they sell the house for a profit, and everyone (who matters) wins. The assumption of 3) was what drove 2008.

beat 8y ago

So how do you measure "the best possible estimate of ability to pay the loan back"? Because I think that broad assumption is a lot more complex and interesting than a simple FICO score. For a crude example, pick health history. The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills due to a health crisis. This of course spills over into mortgage foreclosure. But someone might have excellent credit, and a high cancer risk. They get cancer, byebye loan. Are you accounting for that? Someone has excellent credit, but works in a dying industry and has no skills to move to an equal-paying job in another industry. Their job goes away in five years, byebye mortgage. I can go on with these. But my point is, I don't know if you realize just what a difficult point you're making with your simple answer.

stcredzero 8y ago
Likewise, if you watch "Abacus, Small enough to Jail," you can see an Asian community bank president talking about lending to small business owners because he can go to their restaurant and see how crowded it is, all the time. There are actual 50-something Chinese businessmen who make over a million a year but who work 80+ hour weeks and man their own forklift to save on money. There are people with little empires of alternative health businesses, who keep some large portion of their money in the proverbial mattress because they've had experiences in the past where a different government confiscated their or a friend's holdings, and there are some people like that who try to apply for loans by sending in screenshots of their bank's web apps.
- beat 8y ago
  And banking industry consolidation has cut into those community ties that can change lending patterns. If we want to do something with regulatory policy, I'd think trying to keep banks small and local would be a fine start.
  - T2_t2 8y ago
    How did smaller banks fare during the crisis? I think that's the issue at the heart of whether encouraging them or not. I think the problem with using money lending as a tool for social justice and equality was laid bare during the crisis. The downsides - lack of mobility for workers, pushing the risk from wealthy people (investors) to poorer people and the fact to function the system needs loans to be paid back at some percentage approaching 100 - all conspire to make this a really poor tool for change. I think that something like the Australian approach - with enforced retirement savings set at 9% of income (where you earn $50K, and your employer pays $4.5K into super) - is a saner approach to wealth creation for the poorer groups than lumbering them with mortgages.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I think the problem with using money lending as a tool for social justice and equality was laid bare during the crisis. There's a big difference between a community bank using community ties as a source of superior intelligence, and a big company acting as a mortgage mill trying to maximize throughput "countrywide" until the bubble bursts. Before the community banks existed, Asian community groups would arrange private lending within the community. I think that something like the Australian approach - with enforced retirement savings set at 9% of income (where you earn $50K, and your employer pays $4.5K into super) - is a saner approach to wealth creation for the poorer groups than lumbering them with mortgages. It sounds good on the surface. I'd let people opt-in on that, though.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      I think the problem with using money lending as a tool for social justice And equality was paid bair during the crisis That’s not what happened. It wasn’t poor people who caused most of the defaults - it was investors working with mortgage brokers, real estate agents, and appraisers who were all part of the take. Poor people weren’t doing most of the no doc/negative interest or other types of “non conforming mortgages”. The investors walked away, did strategic defaults, and were free and clear within 3 years - ask me how I know....

jhayward 8y ago

> if you're worried about feedback loops, maybe don't lend based on any criteria other than the best possible estimate of ability to pay the loan back. That is itself the tightest of feedback loops, because the best estimator is either current wealth, or past performance of loans. It is massively exclusionary so I don't think your point is very well made.