In this article from the site BankNoise defines the possibility to sustain their mortgage against default risk.
Rightly insurance should be taken before the default risk is real or even already has not paid one installment.
But the author of the article presents the problem of demand and fairness in helping those with adjustable-rate mortgages have been supported by the state for nonpayment of installment.
Is it fair to help those who are not insured or has made a loan at a fixed rate on his own (but they paid less), while others have had to pay a higher price to get the same guarantees?
In my opinion the answer is both sides.
It is wrong because economically speaking in the lending market certainly creates such an imbalance is not indifferent between customers who have made different choices when purchasing and could push more people not to worry too much about the insolvency of payments.
It is right ethically speaking, because you cannot leave thousands if not millions of people without a home, on the brink of bankruptcy. The protection of the population by a state must always be present. Who, wishing to go into that well, we can easily understand how the economic consequences of an operation by lax state goalkeeper tragic repercussions throughout the market.
The example is that American who fail leaving many lending institutions and not adequately monitoring the financial market has created a system that its failure has created a crisis that has spread worldwide.
