Now let’s suppose that a few months later your borrower dies
in a tragic accident that is in no way his or her fault. What are you going to
do? We will assume that you are neither heartless nor insensitive, but at the
same time you can’t afford to just give money away at will – and your borrower’s
parents co-signed on the loan, promising to pay you back if something like this
happened. Would you go to the co-signer and ask them to honor the commitment they
gave you and repay the loan? Does our answer change if the borrower’s parents
are devastated by the loss? Does it change if they are approaching retirement
age? How about if they have taken in the borrower’s (now orphaned) children and
are working hard just to get by?
This sort of thing happens a lot more often that you would
hope; there was a story about a case just like this that appeared this past
week on CNN online. It’s not exactly a case of biased reporting, but it’s clear
that both the reporter and most of the people who have written in the Comments
think that it is terrible of the finance companies involved to be attempting to
recover their money from these excellent grandparents who are already expending
their savings and giving up any real chance of retirement in order to raise
their grandchildren. The fact that the loans in question were student loans, and
therefore can’t be discharged in bankruptcy or otherwise legally evaded
undoubtedly make this even worse, but the basic issue remains: what are the
loan companies’ ethical responsibilities in this case?
It’s easy to say that the lenders should just forgive all of
the debt – reduce the loan amounts to zero, take a credit on this year’s taxes,
and move on. And if this was the only such case that would ever happen I’m sure
that all of the companies would just write this off. Unfortunately, there are thousands
of such cases every year, and if the companies forgive all of them they will go
out of business, throwing all of their employees out of work and doing
potentially catastrophic damage to their stockholders – none of whom have done anything
wrong either, we should probably note. It might actually be heartless to
collect on debts like these, but it’s hard to imagine how it would be fair to
destroy one group of innocent people in order to help another group of innocent
people – especially when the group that will benefit really did bring the
crisis on themselves…
Which brings me to the inevitable question: does a financial
institution have an ethical responsibility to forgive loans – effectively throwing
away money – because either the original borrower or their co-signer have
suffered a personal or family tragedy? Does our answer change if the original
borrower could easily have obtained life insurance (at a reasonable price) to
cover the loan – which a healthy 27-year-old probably could have – that would
have prevented the whole situation? Does our responsibility to be kindly and
good people override our fiduciary responsibility to our stockholders or our
professional responsibility to our employees and other stakeholders? Or should
we just offer our loans and financial products at fair rates with
clearly-written contracts and assume that our customers are grown adults who
can make their own choices and accept the consequences of their actions?
It’s worth thinking about…
No comments:
Post a Comment