Glass-Steagal Lite

[nevergaveitathought]

little fella..talk about a whap upside your head...im heading to Houston tomorrow. .you'd better run

[WTF]

Just name a place and time old timer.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

nothing you posted addressed anything I said.....just more papering over

That is because nobody forced them to make those loans like you lied...I ignored your lie. Now I will refute it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_su bprime_mortgage_crisis


In their book on the crisis, journalists McLean and Nocera argue that the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) followed rather than led the private sector into subprime lending.

"In 2003, Fannie Mae's estimated market share for bonds backed by single-family housing was 45%. Just one year later, it dropped to 23.5%. As a 2005 internal presentation at Fannie Mae noted, with some alarm, `Private label volume surpassed Fannie Mae volume for the first time.` ... There was no question about why this was happening: the subprime mortgage originators were starting to dominate the market. They didn't need Fannie and Freddie to guarantee their loans ... As Fannie's market share dropped, the company's investors grew restless ...
Citigroup had been hired to look at what Citi called `strategic alternatives to maximize long term ... shareholder value` [at Fannie Mae]. Among its key recommendations for increasing ... market capitalization: ... begin guaranteeing `non-conforming residential mortgages`"[73]

"Non-conforming" loans meaning not conforming to prime lending standards.
In a 2008 article on Fannie Mae, the New York Times describes the company as responding to pressure rather than setting the pace in lending. By 2004, "competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that [it] help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans"[74]
Federal Reserve data found more than 84% of the subprime mortgages in 2006 coming from private-label institutions rather than Fannie and Freddie, and the share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreasing as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48% to insuring 24% of all subprime loans in 2006).[75] According to economists Jeff Madrick and Frank Partnoy, unlike Wall Street, the GSEs "never bought the far riskier collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that were also rated triple-A and were the main source of the financial crisis."[76] A 2011 study by the Fed using statistical comparisons of geographic regions which were and were not subject to GSE regulations, found "little evidence" that GSEs played a significant role in the subprime crisis.[77][78]

[nevergaveitathought]

you hang (and kneel) in the Montrose area right or Houston Heights?

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL! WikiPostingFraud is quoting Wiki again! At least this time he cited to his source! Like Wiki is authoritative! THAT'S Funny!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LOL! WikiPostingFraud is quoting Wiki again! At least this time he cited to his source! Like Wiki is authoritative! THAT'S Funny!

It was a quote from a book about the meltdown. Do you have anything substantive to add to the conversation. ..or shall nevergivesitathought give you the address where I might meet both of you tow dipshits and buy you both a beer?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you hang (and kneel) in the Montrose area right or Houston Heights?

I'm not a God Damn bat so I don't hang anywhere. ..nor am I religious so you won't see me kneeling anywhere. I would like to buy you two numbnuts a round though. Seeing how you two have shown very little knowledge of the financial meltdown. ..maybe you two goobers would be fun to talk Yiddish with.

[CuteOldGuy]

Oh. You've read a book on Yiddish, too, WPF?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh. You've read a book on Yiddish, too, WPF?

No . I've listen to your Yiddish for the last two years!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Who are the "unsuspecting third parties" who bought the bundled loans? Do you think the people who manage your pension fund are just poor l'il widows and orphans? Are they as stupid as you are? Or are they supposed to be trained in finance and have a fiduciary duty to exercise care in how they invest?

The rating agency's committed fraud. Do you not understand wtf happened? Do you just parrot right wing talking points? If so go stand in the corner with COG and nevergivesitathought.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

little fella..talk about a whap upside your head...im heading to Houston tomorrow. .you'd better run

You haven't pm'd me where you will be...How can I buy you a brew?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

they bundled the loans because they didn't want to be stuck with them.. they made the loans initially because they were forced to

Care to discuss your right wing talking point myth? All COG can talk about is that I have read a book (or ten ) about the crisis and its origin. He seems to think that is some sin. Seems he gets all his talking points from Rush Limbaugh.

Originally Posted by WTF

That is because nobody forced them to make those loans like you lied...I ignored your lie. Now I will refute it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_su bprime_mortgage_crisis


In their book on the crisis, journalists McLean and Nocera argue that the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) followed rather than led the private sector into subprime lending.

"In 2003, Fannie Mae's estimated market share for bonds backed by single-family housing was 45%. Just one year later, it dropped to 23.5%. As a 2005 internal presentation at Fannie Mae noted, with some alarm, `Private label volume surpassed Fannie Mae volume for the first time.` ... There was no question about why this was happening: the subprime mortgage originators were starting to dominate the market. They didn't need Fannie and Freddie to guarantee their loans ... As Fannie's market share dropped, the company's investors grew restless ...
Citigroup had been hired to look at what Citi called `strategic alternatives to maximize long term ... shareholder value` [at Fannie Mae]. Among its key recommendations for increasing ... market capitalization: ... begin guaranteeing `non-conforming residential mortgages`"[73]

"Non-conforming" loans meaning not conforming to prime lending standards.
In a 2008 article on Fannie Mae, the New York Times describes the company as responding to pressure rather than setting the pace in lending. By 2004, "competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that [it] help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans"[74]
Federal Reserve data found more than 84% of the subprime mortgages in 2006 coming from private-label institutions rather than Fannie and Freddie, and the share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreasing as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48% to insuring 24% of all subprime loans in 2006).[75] According to economists Jeff Madrick and Frank Partnoy, unlike Wall Street, the GSEs "never bought the far riskier collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that were also rated triple-A and were the main source of the financial crisis."[76] A 2011 study by the Fed using statistical comparisons of geographic regions which were and were not subject to GSE regulations, found "little evidence" that GSEs played a significant role in the subprime crisis.[77][78]

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

lustladyboy, have you read The Big Short? Do you understand how some of these banks made loans, bundled and sold them to unsuspecting investors as AAA and then shorted those bets. These banks made a huge profit on these loans because AIG was the one insuring them. Instead of AIG going bankrupt like it should have...the taxpayers stepped in and paid banks like Goldman, when in fact they should have put people from these firms in jail. Is that the kind of shit you are defending? Just because the AIG bailout was repaid....does not mean that these bankers you are defending are savy (sic) investors as you claim, they were/are common crooks.

You're ducking the question as usual. I asked you to name one big bank that wound up “stiffing the public with their losses”. Just one. You can't do it. AIG is an insurance company, not a bank. So now you argue that the banks stiffed the public with AIG's losses instead of their own. That's a stretch, how does that work? If someone gives you a bailout loan and you use part of the proceeds to pay bills you owe me, does that make me responsible for your losses? Of course not, asshole.

Do you recall Dr. Michael Burry? He was a Cali doctor with no formal training in finance. Yet he was able to identify and zero in on the riskiest mortgage tranches being sold back in 2006 so he could short them and make billions. If he figured it out (just by careful reading of the prospectuses) then why couldn't the people who were PAID to do so figure it out? Your so-called “unsuspecting investors” are just a bunch of crybaby losers who were too lazy to do their jobs and perform due diligence. Like you and other typical crybaby libtards, they approach investing as a “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” game. In other words, I will buy your securities, and if they pay off (like they did for two decades) we're cool. But if any go south, it's your fault and I get to sue you for fraud and tell everyone you're a crook. Fuckin' losers! You fit right in with them, dontcha?

[WTF]

Evidently you have no concept of moral hazard

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're ducking the question as usual. I asked you to name one big bank that wound up “stiffing the public with their losses”. Just one. You can't do it. AIG is an insurance company, not a bank. So now you argue that the banks stiffed the public with AIG's losses instead of their own. That's a stretch, how does that work? If someone gives you a bailout loan and you use part of the proceeds to pay bills you owe me, does that make me responsible for your losses? Of course not, asshole.

?

Remember the TARP, the U.S. Treasury Department's highly controversial, $ 500 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program? That was only the tip of the iceberg. Think: $ 1.2 trillion. That's right. One trillion, two hundred billion dollars as of December 5, 2008 - when Wall Street's emergency borrowing for the federal government peaked.
Turns out America actually was facing a total economic collapse.
That $ 1.2 trillion total is how much cash liquidity Bloomberg estimates the Federal Reserve Board and Treasury injected into Wall Street in the form of low-interest, collateralized loans. It was all supposed to remain secret. And, when you read Bloomberg's analysis, you can see why.
Here's a sample:

• There were actually six different federal programs to keep the private credit markets functioning with taxpayer money in the fall of 2008, after the private lending markets had shut down.

• While we were being told the 10 largest financial institutions had borrowed about $160 billion from the Treasury Department, we weren't being told that the same firms were also borrowing $ 669 billion in emergency funds from the Fed. Those borrowers included Morgan Stanley ($ 107 billion), Citicorp. ($99.5 billion) and Bank of America ($ 91.4 billion).

• Almost half of the Fed's top 30 borrowers were European firms, not Americans. This included Royal Bank of Scotland ($84.5 billion) and UBS AG ($77.2 billion).

• Several big American financial institutions who were trumpeting their liquidity at the time of the crisis (we'll let you dig their names out yourself, rather than call them liars in print), were, in fact, relying on secret federal borrowings to keep afloat and avoid insolvency. At times, and in some instances, the Fed money provided all of an institution's available cash.

• A few institutions required emergency federal loans to stay liquid well into 2010.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...#ixzz2nbZxDYft

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

The rating agency's (sic) committed fraud. Do you not understand wtf happened? Do you just parrot right wing talking points?

Hey dumbfuck, learn the difference between plural and possessive, ok? Your sloppy grammar and constant misspellings are grating on my nerves.

I know exactly what happened during the meltdown. I also know how you libtards are trying to advance your libtard agenda by pushing a totally false narrative of what happened.

The rating agencies fucked up but they didn't commit fraud. I am familiar with some of the math/quantitative techniques they use in structured finance, but explaining it to you would be like discussing physics with a chimp. The rating agencies provide guidance, not guarantees. Until you libtards and your tort bar snakes started turning everyone into whining victims, ALL investors understood they are required to rely on their own research and judgment and risk appetite, not the rating agencies.

During the meltdown investors dumped all mortgage-related securities, even those performing as the rating agency models had predicted with no cashflow delinquencies. That's what happens in a financial panic. Prices for many securities diverge from economic reality but recover again when markets calm.