He got rejected because banks cater to certain types of customers. If his income was all W2 statements and clearly 100% salary he'd be fine. But it's not.
Hell, even trying to get a loan based on an AGI where 50% is a performance based bonus can be hard. That will be discounted heavily since there is no guarantee you'll make that much money next year.
Claim A is that they're being too strict about type of income. Claim B was that they were being too loose about amount of income. It's rational to believe both claims at the same time.
It's a spectrum, so it doesn't matter what a particular level is called. Claim A wants a reduction in one type of strictness, Claim B wants an increase in a different type.
> which is logically the solution to Claim A "too loose with lending standards".
The idea, for someone making both claims, is that they are being strict about the wrong things.
Being strict about income source is NOT a solution to being loose about income amount.
The mortgage crisis wasn't caused by giving too many loans to high-income contractors.
I don't follow. What is humorous about saying loans should do verification and that this guy has enough income demonstrated over multiple years to qualify for a loan? There is no contradiction there.