I see it as fraud. She benefitted financially from the sales that otherwise would not have taken place and her clients went against stress test requirements. On individual scale, the buyers might be better off (with current interest rates that’s not a guarantee either) but those requirements exist on a macro scale to protect the banking system from collapsing and fake documents have been becoming increasingly common.
I’m not defending impossible housing prices but income requirements would exist even if housing was affordable to most as it’s needed to avoid giving out loans that will not be paid back.
These type of arguments do not look at the big picture.
Stealing from big companies can sound noble if you only look at the theft itself. But when you take a step back and look at how the money flows, you will see that the company does just take the loss and do nothing. What actually happens is the company sees the theft as an additional cost, and includes those costs in the prices charged to everyone else. Resulting in the money to cover the theft coming from other customers.
So the net result of stealing from a big company, is stealing from ever other customer.
She should go to prison for knowingly falsifying financial documents. I wonder what happens if you try that with the CRA.
This isn’t a prison thing. All she did was a little Robin Hood action, got a little money for the little guy from banks. Fuck the banks who cares?
I see it as fraud. She benefitted financially from the sales that otherwise would not have taken place and her clients went against stress test requirements. On individual scale, the buyers might be better off (with current interest rates that’s not a guarantee either) but those requirements exist on a macro scale to protect the banking system from collapsing and fake documents have been becoming increasingly common.
I’m not defending impossible housing prices but income requirements would exist even if housing was affordable to most as it’s needed to avoid giving out loans that will not be paid back.
These type of arguments do not look at the big picture.
Stealing from big companies can sound noble if you only look at the theft itself. But when you take a step back and look at how the money flows, you will see that the company does just take the loss and do nothing. What actually happens is the company sees the theft as an additional cost, and includes those costs in the prices charged to everyone else. Resulting in the money to cover the theft coming from other customers.
So the net result of stealing from a big company, is stealing from ever other customer.