>>No, you don't need guarantors for a mortgage here. The idea is that the house itself is your guarantee. Also, with many of the loans that are the problem, the down payment was tiny or non-existent.
>What happened a lot in the last few years is that the lenders set up special plans where the borrower could borrower the whole thing. That's part of why it's all collapsing.
>
>In this case fault is not only on commercial banks, but also on legislative that alowed all
>this to happen. Where was central bank (fed) to prevent this 'monkie bussiness' ??
>
>>
>>The rule used to be that you could only get a loan for 80% of the purchase price (except in some special cases).
>
>That is more normal banking system I would say;
>Downpayment 20%, guarantors , insurance on loan etc.
>
>Here they go to other extreme when it comes to safeguarding loans.
>I bought car this year, and I was furious when I disscovered that
>I needed again two guarantors. On a car loan ???
>But that is something specific for bank where our company keeps accounts, so despite that
>unwaranted request I still did not want to go 'shop elsewhere'.
>
>* * *
>
>It would be interesting however if they had that kind louse banking rules for cars as well <g>;
>You loan most expensive car, drive it for couple of years and then simply say
>'I can't take it any more!' shed few tiers - and walk away from the car!
>Like that lady walked away from house/loan all together with 'support of friends'.
>
>Jeez, I don't believe sheiks in SaudiA would be driving better cars then certain
>neighbourhoods <vbg>
>

You once again hit the nail on the head. IMO the root of many of our financial problems, which have been brewing for years, is our addiction to consumer goods. Lots of us (including me) don't need half the stuff we have gone out and bought.