Discussion:
Special Investigation: How America`s Biggest Bank Paid Its Fine for the 2008 Mortgage Crisis`With Phony Mortgages!
(too old to reply)
arthur wouk
2017-10-07 05:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/

Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
--

"One of the worst things about the politics of the past 30
years`is that the rich have forgotten to be afraid of the poor"- Eric Hobsbawm
mg
2017-10-07 13:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
be afraid of the FBI and the DOJ and the SEC:

--------------

"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34

". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
Gary
2017-10-07 15:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------

A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.

He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."

"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
El Castor
2017-10-07 20:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8

Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-07 23:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
One of the banks I'm using at present is based in Puerto
Rico, though my branch of it is in Miami. It's all FDIC
insured, and I'm willing to take lower interest in exchange
for security at my age. I just hope I'm not living in a Fool's
Paradise and one day Senator Sludgepump, head of the
FDIC, doesn't suddenly just confiscate all the money that
people have put into insured accounts for the better good
of the country and for the maintenance of his private jets
and hookers.
Gary
2017-10-08 12:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
Actually, I like banks and bankers. I've never had any trouble with
them -- and I have been helped by bankers since I was a young man
needing financial assistance and advice.

But --- I don't think any group should be safe from a little critical
humor :-)
mg
2017-10-08 14:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
El Castor
2017-10-08 19:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.

"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
mg
2017-10-10 10:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
me
2017-10-10 11:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It’s happening again without the ones you mentioned. There are also lots of auto and student loans. So who’s doing it and why? Who’s buying the debt and why? Who is going to get stuck with the bad loans and how?
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-10 15:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
mg
2017-10-10 17:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
El Castor
2017-10-10 19:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
Prosecute bankers for breaking what law? We're doing the same thing
today, and I don't hear a murmur from you guys. Obama is, or was,
behind the latest rash of subprimes. Should he be prosecuted? Trump
isn't doing anything to stop it. Jail time for him too? How about all
the dead beats that borrowed money to buy houses, and walked away from
loans they promised to pay. Labor camps? Leavenworth?

And right now -- as we speak.
"5 mortgages that require no down payment or a small down payment
Holden Lewis
March 17, 2017"
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/mortgages/4-mortgages-that-require-little-money-down-1.aspx

Who to prosecute?
mg
2017-10-11 04:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:03:31 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
Prosecute bankers for breaking what law? We're doing the same thing
today, and I don't hear a murmur from you guys. Obama is, or was,
behind the latest rash of subprimes. Should he be prosecuted? Trump
isn't doing anything to stop it. Jail time for him too? How about all
the dead beats that borrowed money to buy houses, and walked away from
loans they promised to pay. Labor camps? Leavenworth?
And right now -- as we speak.
"5 mortgages that require no down payment or a small down payment
Holden Lewis
March 17, 2017"
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/mortgages/4-mortgages-that-require-little-money-down-1.aspx
Who to prosecute?
I think the executives of the institutions involved, or at
least some of them, should have been prosecuted. I haven't
suggested that any politicians broke any laws, or should be,
or should have been, prosecuted for the financial crisis of
2007-2008.

Here are a couple of articles that address the issue of how
Wall Street Executives avoided prosecution:
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-10 19:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
mg
2017-10-11 05:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-11 08:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
The upper levels of the American banking system
are very much in a "protected" class immune to
market forces and responsibilities which Adam
Smith very forcefully opposed. As has been often
suggested lately, "too big to fail" is "too big". Adam
Smith became very rich and by the end of his life
had given most of his money to the relief of the poor.
He didn't give any of it to banks or big businesses.
El Castor
2017-10-11 09:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.

You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
mg
2017-10-11 12:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:15:34 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.
You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
I think that the American system and the American mind set,
if you will, is such that we do not expect corporations to
demonstrate any empathy, or morality, or any reason to trust
them. We only expect them to obey the law.

If I buy stock in a bank, for instance, I expect management
to do everything in its power to maximize profits within
legal boundaries and I, of course, certainly wouldn't be
happy if I lost money on my investment because the bank
became involved in some sort of humanitarian enterprise, for
example.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-11 13:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:15:34 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.
You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
I think that the American system and the American mind set,
if you will, is such that we do not expect corporations to
demonstrate any empathy, or morality, or any reason to trust
them. We only expect them to obey the law.
And that's the way it "should" be, as Saint Adam said.
I mentioned elsewhere that he gave his own fortune away
to help the poor, but that's "charity" and completely
separate from the money he made from the sale of his
writings, which was "business".

Capitalism is fine, and good, but only IN ITS PLACE, IMV.
Post by mg
If I buy stock in a bank, for instance, I expect management
to do everything in its power to maximize profits within
legal boundaries and I, of course, certainly wouldn't be
happy if I lost money on my investment because the bank
became involved in some sort of humanitarian enterprise, for
example.
mg
2017-10-12 09:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:15:34 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.
You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
I think that the American system and the American mind set,
if you will, is such that we do not expect corporations to
demonstrate any empathy, or morality, or any reason to trust
them. We only expect them to obey the law.
And that's the way it "should" be, as Saint Adam said.
Yes, Absolutely. I agree 100 percent.

However one of the problems is that capitalist use their
petty cash to buy off politicians. That's a different
subject, though, and a different problem which, perhaps, has
no practical solution.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I mentioned elsewhere that he gave his own fortune away
to help the poor, but that's "charity" and completely
separate from the money he made from the sale of his
writings, which was "business".
Capitalism is fine, and good, but only IN ITS PLACE, IMV.
Post by mg
If I buy stock in a bank, for instance, I expect management
to do everything in its power to maximize profits within
legal boundaries and I, of course, certainly wouldn't be
happy if I lost money on my investment because the bank
became involved in some sort of humanitarian enterprise, for
example.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-12 12:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I think that the American system and the American mind set,
if you will, is such that we do not expect corporations to
demonstrate any empathy, or morality, or any reason to trust
them. We only expect them to obey the law.
And that's the way it "should" be, as Saint Adam said.
Yes, Absolutely. I agree 100 percent.
However one of the problems is that capitalist use their
petty cash to buy off politicians. That's a different
subject, though, and a different problem which, perhaps, has
no practical solution.
That certainly is a problem, and one that Adam Smith
said was a great threat to people's faith in and support
of a capitalist society. As to a practical solution. It
should simply be illegal IMV, with teeth that is, not just
nudge nudge wink wink illegal. It would still happen but
then both the politicians dispensing favours and the
bribers could be prosecuted.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-11 13:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:15:34 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
In that case, of course, why are banks involved in the process
of home loans at all? All they do is suck some of the blood before
passing the loan on to the government.
Post by El Castor
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
That's a parasitism on the banks somewhat balancing the above
parasitism BY the banks, but it's yet another reason banks needn't
be involved in home loans at all IMV. America has a weird disease
in believing that everything has to be done via a "Free Enterprise"
middleman even when the middleman isn't free but is just an
unnecessary, and parasitic, link in the chain. That's yet another
reason for "socialism" - in my sense of that word, not yours.
Post by El Castor
You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.
And, as noted, it's a system that shouldn't be in place at all IMV.
Post by El Castor
You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
If the banks didn't make money in general, they'd go
bankrupt, so they have to make money in other ways to
compensate for their losses, but that's just another reason
banks shouldn't be involved in that process at all.

Before the FDIC, commoners could go bankrupt if a bank
in which they'd placed their money went belly-up, so we
definitely do need the FDIC, but IMV banks should only
make loans when it's "good business" by their best guess
to do so, and therefore any business in which their hand is
forced should instead be the business directly of government,
not using a bank as a pointless intermediary that drains
some of the money involved in the process.
El Castor
2017-10-11 21:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:15:34 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
In that case, of course, why are banks involved in the process
of home loans at all? All they do is suck some of the blood before
passing the loan on to the government.
The government should not be involved at all. It was the implied
government backing of Fannie and Freddie that allowed this thing to
get completely out of hand.
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
That's a parasitism on the banks somewhat balancing the above
parasitism BY the banks, but it's yet another reason banks needn't
be involved in home loans at all IMV. America has a weird disease
in believing that everything has to be done via a "Free Enterprise"
middleman even when the middleman isn't free but is just an
unnecessary, and parasitic, link in the chain. That's yet another
reason for "socialism" - in my sense of that word, not yours.
Post by El Castor
You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.
And, as noted, it's a system that shouldn't be in place at all IMV.
Post by El Castor
You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
If the banks didn't make money in general, they'd go
bankrupt, so they have to make money in other ways to
compensate for their losses, but that's just another reason
banks shouldn't be involved in that process at all.
Before the FDIC, commoners could go bankrupt if a bank
in which they'd placed their money went belly-up, so we
definitely do need the FDIC, but IMV banks should only
make loans when it's "good business" by their best guess
to do so, and therefore any business in which their hand is
forced should instead be the business directly of government,
not using a bank as a pointless intermediary that drains
some of the money involved in the process.
Don't you get it? Fannie and Freddie are also intermediaries. They
package the loans, turning them into securities, and sell them to
individuals and pension funds. 2008 happened, not because the
government wasn't enough involved, but because it was too much
involved -- by using legislation to force banks to make loans with
little or nothing down to poorly qualified borrowers (ideally
minorities -- that was the idea), and then taking the crap off their
hands with fannie and freddie.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-11 22:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:33:56 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:15:34 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
In that case, of course, why are banks involved in the process
of home loans at all? All they do is suck some of the blood before
passing the loan on to the government.
The government should not be involved at all. It was the implied
government backing of Fannie and Freddie that allowed this thing to
get completely out of hand.
I disagree. I think banks should not be involved at all.
Post by El Castor
Don't you get it? Fannie and Freddie are also intermediaries. They
package the loans, turning them into securities, and sell them to
individuals and pension funds. 2008 happened, not because the
government wasn't enough involved, but because it was too much
involved -- by using legislation to force banks to make loans with
little or nothing down to poorly qualified borrowers (ideally
minorities -- that was the idea), and then taking the crap off their
hands with fannie and freddie.
All intermediaries should be gone IMV, and any subprime
housing loans should be, IMV, entirely under control of the
government. The problem we're having is because of the
weird, unhealthy, and unworkable mixture of government
support and Free Enterprise in getting homes for people
who can't afford what the free market has been doing with
prices. You can't glue a monkey's legs to a fish and expect
it to all work out somehow, no matter how much you tweak
it.

Of course, you and I have fundamentally different ideas
of what should be the province of the State and what
should be the province of Free Enterprise.
El Castor
2017-10-12 19:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:33:56 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:15:34 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
In that case, of course, why are banks involved in the process
of home loans at all? All they do is suck some of the blood before
passing the loan on to the government.
The government should not be involved at all. It was the implied
government backing of Fannie and Freddie that allowed this thing to
get completely out of hand.
I disagree. I think banks should not be involved at all.
Post by El Castor
Don't you get it? Fannie and Freddie are also intermediaries. They
package the loans, turning them into securities, and sell them to
individuals and pension funds. 2008 happened, not because the
government wasn't enough involved, but because it was too much
involved -- by using legislation to force banks to make loans with
little or nothing down to poorly qualified borrowers (ideally
minorities -- that was the idea), and then taking the crap off their
hands with fannie and freddie.
All intermediaries should be gone IMV, and any subprime
housing loans should be, IMV, entirely under control of the
government. The problem we're having is because of the
weird, unhealthy, and unworkable mixture of government
support and Free Enterprise in getting homes for people
who can't afford what the free market has been doing with
prices. You can't glue a monkey's legs to a fish and expect
it to all work out somehow, no matter how much you tweak
it.
Of course, you and I have fundamentally different ideas
of what should be the province of the State and what
should be the province of Free Enterprise.
We certainly do!
islander
2017-10-11 14:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.
You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
Sigh! You keep ignoring the reality of what happened in the 2004-2007
time frame. The "banks" were not just flipping mortgages to the GSEs.
The "banks" were not even the major players in the primary mortgage
market. That would have been the various mortgage brokerage houses such
as New Century Financial and other similar companies. 65% of the
mortgages that they flipped went, not to the GSEs, but to the big banks
that were playing with "creative" ways of reducing risk through various
forms of derivatives and hedging strategies. When the big banks started
to fail, it was because they were largely ignored by the Bush
administration or where intentionally made invisible due to the
Commodities Modernization Act of 2000. The separation of banking
functions that was overturned in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 also
gave the large banks the excuse to ignore inherent conflict of interest.

It was all about greed.
El Castor
2017-10-12 06:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.
You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
Sigh! You keep ignoring the reality of what happened in the 2004-2007
time frame. The "banks" were not just flipping mortgages to the GSEs.
The "banks" were not even the major players in the primary mortgage
market. That would have been the various mortgage brokerage houses such
as New Century Financial and other similar companies. 65% of the
mortgages that they flipped went, not to the GSEs, but to the big banks
that were playing with "creative" ways of reducing risk through various
forms of derivatives and hedging strategies. When the big banks started
to fail, it was because they were largely ignored by the Bush
administration or where intentionally made invisible due to the
Commodities Modernization Act of 2000. The separation of banking
functions that was overturned in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 also
gave the large banks the excuse to ignore inherent conflict of interest.
It was all about greed.
It was all about government. Government forced banks with the
Community Reinvestment Act, Home Mortgage (Race) Disclosure Act, and
the essential participation of Fannie Mae, to make loans to poorly
qualified borrowers. Poorly qualified meant first and foremost, an
inability to come up with a significant down payment. This is where
Fannie came in. The GSEs define exactly what they want in a loan that
they are willing to buy, and in doing so they set the standards, the
subprime standards, which banks must follow to sell their loans.

You are a former academic. Read all about it. The following piece does
not go easy on the private sector, but it is clear where the finger of
blame should point. Well meaning liberals constructed a system
designed to aid the less well off, and Blacks in particular, in
realizing the American Dream -- home ownership, but as often happens
with good intentions, the law of unintended consequences reared its
ugly head ...

"San José State University
Department of Economics
The Nature and the Origin
of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
islander
2017-10-12 16:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.
You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
Sigh! You keep ignoring the reality of what happened in the 2004-2007
time frame. The "banks" were not just flipping mortgages to the GSEs.
The "banks" were not even the major players in the primary mortgage
market. That would have been the various mortgage brokerage houses such
as New Century Financial and other similar companies. 65% of the
mortgages that they flipped went, not to the GSEs, but to the big banks
that were playing with "creative" ways of reducing risk through various
forms of derivatives and hedging strategies. When the big banks started
to fail, it was because they were largely ignored by the Bush
administration or where intentionally made invisible due to the
Commodities Modernization Act of 2000. The separation of banking
functions that was overturned in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 also
gave the large banks the excuse to ignore inherent conflict of interest.
It was all about greed.
It was all about government. Government forced banks with the
Community Reinvestment Act, Home Mortgage (Race) Disclosure Act, and
the essential participation of Fannie Mae, to make loans to poorly
qualified borrowers. Poorly qualified meant first and foremost, an
inability to come up with a significant down payment. This is where
Fannie came in. The GSEs define exactly what they want in a loan that
they are willing to buy, and in doing so they set the standards, the
subprime standards, which banks must follow to sell their loans.
You are a former academic. Read all about it. The following piece does
not go easy on the private sector, but it is clear where the finger of
blame should point. Well meaning liberals constructed a system
designed to aid the less well off, and Blacks in particular, in
realizing the American Dream -- home ownership, but as often happens
with good intentions, the law of unintended consequences reared its
ugly head ...
"San José State University
Department of Economics
The Nature and the Origin
of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
You are grasping for straws. An economics professor from San Jose State
who retired in 2008? Really?

You worked for a small bank and are probably justifiably proud of that
bank and what they did. But, the financial crisis was not about small
banks. It was about the greed in mortgage brokerage houses that could
separate themselves from any future liability on the mortgages that they
wrote and which were gobbled up by the big private sector banks. They
thought that they could minimize risks by developing creative derivative
products and engaging in various forms of hedge strategies. It blew up
in their faces.

By contrast, the GSEs operated smoothly through the end of the last
century, performed a valuable service in making money available for
mortgages, and providing high quality products to the investment market.
They did this in the context of strict requirements on the mortgages
that they bought. Unfortunately, one of the early acts of the Bush
administration was to throw out those requirements with the appointment
of Alfonso Jackson as his HUD Secretary. By 2007, Bush was pressuring
the GSEs to accept ever more risky mortgages, probably because he knew
that the private sector banks were already in trouble.

The history is written. You should try reading it.
El Castor
2017-10-12 20:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Adam Smith would be crapping his pants if he heard
about the bank bailouts. Compensate the commoners
getting hurt, yes. Bank billionaires? Send 'em to the
Gulag until they can work it off.
Yes, indeed. As the old saying goes, when you subsidize
something, you get more of it and the bailouts and the
failure to prosecute, make it more likely that it will
happen again.
I saw a thingie on PBS about Adam Smith a couple
of days ago. I mentioned to my son that it was too
bad that he and Ben Franklin never met, but it turns
out they did meet.
As I understand it, Adam Smith believed in empathy and trust
and morality, but I think the banking collapse had more to
do with greed than any kind of morality or empathy.
Banks are not in the business of loaning money to home buyers. They
put up the cash, make some quick money on the points charged on the
loan, and then sell it as quickly as possible to primarily Fannie and
Freddie -- the GSEs, so they can get their cash back and do it all
over again. The rules governing the loans, and the qualifications
required of the borrowers are all set by the GSEs, not by the banks.
They even had one GSE designed piece of crap that was known in the
industry as the "liar loan". But it gets worse. Banks have a variety
of laws constantly peering over their shoulder -- laws aimed at
pressuring them to make loans to minorities -- as in the Community
Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. You (or a
lawyer) can go online and put together an amazing amount of data on
the race and ethnicity of applicants for loans, and whether or not the
loan was granted. Step out of line, and lenders are not only in
trouble with the feds, but they get sued right and left. That isn't to
say that some bankers haven't crossed the line (Wells Fargo is a
recent shameful example), but it is a system designed by politicians
to force often unwise behavior.
You aren't complaining about the zero down loans that lenders are
required to sell as we speak, so no fair getting all "put 'em in Jail"
when the latest round of subprime crap goes south -- as sooner or
later it will.
Sigh! You keep ignoring the reality of what happened in the 2004-2007
time frame. The "banks" were not just flipping mortgages to the GSEs.
The "banks" were not even the major players in the primary mortgage
market. That would have been the various mortgage brokerage houses such
as New Century Financial and other similar companies. 65% of the
mortgages that they flipped went, not to the GSEs, but to the big banks
that were playing with "creative" ways of reducing risk through various
forms of derivatives and hedging strategies. When the big banks started
to fail, it was because they were largely ignored by the Bush
administration or where intentionally made invisible due to the
Commodities Modernization Act of 2000. The separation of banking
functions that was overturned in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 also
gave the large banks the excuse to ignore inherent conflict of interest.
It was all about greed.
It was all about government. Government forced banks with the
Community Reinvestment Act, Home Mortgage (Race) Disclosure Act, and
the essential participation of Fannie Mae, to make loans to poorly
qualified borrowers. Poorly qualified meant first and foremost, an
inability to come up with a significant down payment. This is where
Fannie came in. The GSEs define exactly what they want in a loan that
they are willing to buy, and in doing so they set the standards, the
subprime standards, which banks must follow to sell their loans.
You are a former academic. Read all about it. The following piece does
not go easy on the private sector, but it is clear where the finger of
blame should point. Well meaning liberals constructed a system
designed to aid the less well off, and Blacks in particular, in
realizing the American Dream -- home ownership, but as often happens
with good intentions, the law of unintended consequences reared its
ugly head ...
"San José State University
Department of Economics
The Nature and the Origin
of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
You are grasping for straws. An economics professor from San Jose State
who retired in 2008? Really?
You worked for a small bank
Small? (-8
Post by islander
and are probably justifiably proud of that
bank and what they did. But, the financial crisis was not about small
banks. It was about the greed in mortgage brokerage houses that could
separate themselves from any future liability on the mortgages that they
wrote and which were gobbled up by the big private sector banks. They
thought that they could minimize risks by developing creative derivative
products and engaging in various forms of hedge strategies. It blew up
in their faces.
By contrast, the GSEs operated smoothly through the end of the last
century, performed a valuable service in making money available for
mortgages, and providing high quality products to the investment market.
They did this in the context of strict requirements on the mortgages
that they bought. Unfortunately, one of the early acts of the Bush
administration was to throw out those requirements with the appointment
of Alfonso Jackson as his HUD Secretary. By 2007, Bush was pressuring
the GSEs to accept ever more risky mortgages, probably because he knew
that the private sector banks were already in trouble.
The history is written. You should try reading it.
I have, and as usual, you are predictably and pathetically WRONG. I
have led the horses ass to water. If it won't drink, I am not the
least surprised.
El Castor
2017-10-10 18:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Why jail? Fannie and Freddie bought subprime loans at the behest of
their masters -- the politicians. The target of those loans were
Blacks, who for the most part were unable to realize the American
Dream of home ownership because they couldn't come up with 20%, but
once the loans were created they didn't have "Black Only" stamped on
them -- so loan officers couldn't restrict them by race. If you
qualified, you got the loan, and banks made those loans because they
could be sold. Everyone knew that housing was a great investment that
could only increase in value. We are doing the same thing today. Who,
specifically should be arrested?

By the way, since you blamed Bush -- please read this ...

"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the
companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.
And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the
risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than
$1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
<Snip>
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

This effort by Bush was defeated. He tried again in 2006 -- this time
at the Senate level, and lost again. Should Bush go to jail? How about
the Republican (only Republican) senators who signed this letter --
jail for them, too?
""Dear Majority Leader Frist and Chainnan Shelby, We are concerned
that if effective regulatory refonn legislation for the
housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted
this year, American taxpayers will continue to'be exposed to the
enonnous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing
market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf

Who broke what law, and who should go to jail?
mg
2017-10-11 04:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:45:43 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Why jail? Fannie and Freddie bought subprime loans at the behest of
their masters -- the politicians. The target of those loans were
Blacks, who for the most part were unable to realize the American
Dream of home ownership because they couldn't come up with 20%, but
once the loans were created they didn't have "Black Only" stamped on
them -- so loan officers couldn't restrict them by race. If you
qualified, you got the loan, and banks made those loans because they
could be sold. Everyone knew that housing was a great investment that
could only increase in value. We are doing the same thing today. Who,
specifically should be arrested?
By the way, since you blamed Bush -- please read this ...
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the
companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.
And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the
risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than
$1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
<Snip>
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
This effort by Bush was defeated. He tried again in 2006 -- this time
at the Senate level, and lost again. Should Bush go to jail? How about
the Republican (only Republican) senators who signed this letter --
jail for them, too?
""Dear Majority Leader Frist and Chainnan Shelby, We are concerned
that if effective regulatory refonn legislation for the
housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted
this year, American taxpayers will continue to'be exposed to the
enonnous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing
market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf
Who broke what law, and who should go to jail?
I think the executives of the institutions involved, or at
least some of them, should have been prosecuted. I haven't
suggested that any politicians broke any laws, or should be,
or should have been, prosecuted for the financial crisis of
2007-2008.

Here are a couple of articles that address the issue of how
Wall Street Executives avoided prosecution:
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/
El Castor
2017-10-11 09:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:45:43 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Why jail? Fannie and Freddie bought subprime loans at the behest of
their masters -- the politicians. The target of those loans were
Blacks, who for the most part were unable to realize the American
Dream of home ownership because they couldn't come up with 20%, but
once the loans were created they didn't have "Black Only" stamped on
them -- so loan officers couldn't restrict them by race. If you
qualified, you got the loan, and banks made those loans because they
could be sold. Everyone knew that housing was a great investment that
could only increase in value. We are doing the same thing today. Who,
specifically should be arrested?
By the way, since you blamed Bush -- please read this ...
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the
companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.
And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the
risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than
$1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
<Snip>
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
This effort by Bush was defeated. He tried again in 2006 -- this time
at the Senate level, and lost again. Should Bush go to jail? How about
the Republican (only Republican) senators who signed this letter --
jail for them, too?
""Dear Majority Leader Frist and Chainnan Shelby, We are concerned
that if effective regulatory refonn legislation for the
housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted
this year, American taxpayers will continue to'be exposed to the
enonnous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing
market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf
Who broke what law, and who should go to jail?
I think the executives of the institutions involved, or at
least some of them, should have been prosecuted. I haven't
suggested that any politicians broke any laws, or should be,
or should have been, prosecuted for the financial crisis of
2007-2008.
Here are a couple of articles that address the issue of how
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/
And here is a different side of the story ...

"San Jose State University Department of Economics
The Nature and The Origin of The Subprime Mortgage Crisis"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm

It's long and incredible, but at least read the summary at the very
end.
mg
2017-10-11 13:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:32:42 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:45:43 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Why jail? Fannie and Freddie bought subprime loans at the behest of
their masters -- the politicians. The target of those loans were
Blacks, who for the most part were unable to realize the American
Dream of home ownership because they couldn't come up with 20%, but
once the loans were created they didn't have "Black Only" stamped on
them -- so loan officers couldn't restrict them by race. If you
qualified, you got the loan, and banks made those loans because they
could be sold. Everyone knew that housing was a great investment that
could only increase in value. We are doing the same thing today. Who,
specifically should be arrested?
By the way, since you blamed Bush -- please read this ...
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the
companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.
And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the
risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than
$1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
<Snip>
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
This effort by Bush was defeated. He tried again in 2006 -- this time
at the Senate level, and lost again. Should Bush go to jail? How about
the Republican (only Republican) senators who signed this letter --
jail for them, too?
""Dear Majority Leader Frist and Chainnan Shelby, We are concerned
that if effective regulatory refonn legislation for the
housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted
this year, American taxpayers will continue to'be exposed to the
enonnous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing
market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf
Who broke what law, and who should go to jail?
I think the executives of the institutions involved, or at
least some of them, should have been prosecuted. I haven't
suggested that any politicians broke any laws, or should be,
or should have been, prosecuted for the financial crisis of
2007-2008.
Here are a couple of articles that address the issue of how
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/
And here is a different side of the story ...
"San Jose State University Department of Economics
The Nature and The Origin of The Subprime Mortgage Crisis"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
It's long and incredible, but at least read the summary at the very
end.
It's been about 10 years since the 2008 banking collapse and
now, after all these years, my main interests are:

1. Determining who was to blame.
2. Determining who was responsible for the bailout.
3. Determining why some bankers weren't prosecuted.

In the article that you referenced, the author names
Franklin Raines and Timothy Howard as two people to blame. I
don't know if that's true, but I don't have any problem,
just off hand, adding them to my list of people to blame,
which includes Clinton, Bush, Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved.
El Castor
2017-10-11 21:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:32:42 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:45:43 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Why jail? Fannie and Freddie bought subprime loans at the behest of
their masters -- the politicians. The target of those loans were
Blacks, who for the most part were unable to realize the American
Dream of home ownership because they couldn't come up with 20%, but
once the loans were created they didn't have "Black Only" stamped on
them -- so loan officers couldn't restrict them by race. If you
qualified, you got the loan, and banks made those loans because they
could be sold. Everyone knew that housing was a great investment that
could only increase in value. We are doing the same thing today. Who,
specifically should be arrested?
By the way, since you blamed Bush -- please read this ...
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the
companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.
And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the
risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than
$1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
<Snip>
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
This effort by Bush was defeated. He tried again in 2006 -- this time
at the Senate level, and lost again. Should Bush go to jail? How about
the Republican (only Republican) senators who signed this letter --
jail for them, too?
""Dear Majority Leader Frist and Chainnan Shelby, We are concerned
that if effective regulatory refonn legislation for the
housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted
this year, American taxpayers will continue to'be exposed to the
enonnous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing
market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf
Who broke what law, and who should go to jail?
I think the executives of the institutions involved, or at
least some of them, should have been prosecuted. I haven't
suggested that any politicians broke any laws, or should be,
or should have been, prosecuted for the financial crisis of
2007-2008.
Here are a couple of articles that address the issue of how
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/
And here is a different side of the story ...
"San Jose State University Department of Economics
The Nature and The Origin of The Subprime Mortgage Crisis"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
It's long and incredible, but at least read the summary at the very
end.
It's been about 10 years since the 2008 banking collapse and
1. Determining who was to blame.
2. Determining who was responsible for the bailout.
3. Determining why some bankers weren't prosecuted.
In the article that you referenced, the author names
Franklin Raines and Timothy Howard as two people to blame. I
don't know if that's true, but I don't have any problem,
just off hand, adding them to my list of people to blame,
which includes Clinton, Bush, Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved.
Read the whole thing and you will understand exactly what happened.

Do you understand why the 4% and 0% down loans we are currently making
are not a good idea? How about the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and
Community Reinvestment Act? Understand the problem they created? As
for Greenspan, the fed lowering rates after the dot com bust wasn't in
itself a bad idea. It was the usual response to an economic downturn.
Problem was, it synergized with an already insane mortgage market.
Greenspan later did see disaster coming, and in Feb 2005 in testimony
before congress, he said, that by letting these two agencies grow
unchecked, “We are placing the total financial system of the future at
a substantial risk.”

The Economist in a 2005 article begins by saying ...
"The Fed's chairman, Alan Greenspan, has urged Congress to do
something to rein in America's two monster mortgage-finance agencies,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, before they put the country's financial
system at risk"
And concludes by saying ...
"Fannie Mae likes to say that “Our business is the American dream”.
Homeownership is undoubtedly popular with Americans and their
politicians. But if the Fed chairman is right, these two
dream-builders should be keeping financial regulators awake at night."
http://www.economist.com/node/3686475
mg
2017-10-12 09:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:17:53 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:32:42 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:45:43 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Why jail? Fannie and Freddie bought subprime loans at the behest of
their masters -- the politicians. The target of those loans were
Blacks, who for the most part were unable to realize the American
Dream of home ownership because they couldn't come up with 20%, but
once the loans were created they didn't have "Black Only" stamped on
them -- so loan officers couldn't restrict them by race. If you
qualified, you got the loan, and banks made those loans because they
could be sold. Everyone knew that housing was a great investment that
could only increase in value. We are doing the same thing today. Who,
specifically should be arrested?
By the way, since you blamed Bush -- please read this ...
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the
companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.
And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the
risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than
$1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
<Snip>
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
This effort by Bush was defeated. He tried again in 2006 -- this time
at the Senate level, and lost again. Should Bush go to jail? How about
the Republican (only Republican) senators who signed this letter --
jail for them, too?
""Dear Majority Leader Frist and Chainnan Shelby, We are concerned
that if effective regulatory refonn legislation for the
housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted
this year, American taxpayers will continue to'be exposed to the
enonnous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing
market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf
Who broke what law, and who should go to jail?
I think the executives of the institutions involved, or at
least some of them, should have been prosecuted. I haven't
suggested that any politicians broke any laws, or should be,
or should have been, prosecuted for the financial crisis of
2007-2008.
Here are a couple of articles that address the issue of how
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/
And here is a different side of the story ...
"San Jose State University Department of Economics
The Nature and The Origin of The Subprime Mortgage Crisis"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
It's long and incredible, but at least read the summary at the very
end.
It's been about 10 years since the 2008 banking collapse and
1. Determining who was to blame.
2. Determining who was responsible for the bailout.
3. Determining why some bankers weren't prosecuted.
In the article that you referenced, the author names
Franklin Raines and Timothy Howard as two people to blame. I
don't know if that's true, but I don't have any problem,
just off hand, adding them to my list of people to blame,
which includes Clinton, Bush, Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved.
Read the whole thing and you will understand exactly what happened.
Do you understand why the 4% and 0% down loans we are currently making
are not a good idea? How about the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and
Community Reinvestment Act? Understand the problem they created? As
for Greenspan, the fed lowering rates after the dot com bust wasn't in
itself a bad idea. It was the usual response to an economic downturn.
Problem was, it synergized with an already insane mortgage market.
Greenspan later did see disaster coming, and in Feb 2005 in testimony
before congress, he said, that by letting these two agencies grow
unchecked, “We are placing the total financial system of the future at
a substantial risk.”
The Economist in a 2005 article begins by saying ...
"The Fed's chairman, Alan Greenspan, has urged Congress to do
something to rein in America's two monster mortgage-finance agencies,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, before they put the country's financial
system at risk"
And concludes by saying ...
"Fannie Mae likes to say that “Our business is the American dream”.
Homeownership is undoubtedly popular with Americans and their
politicians. But if the Fed chairman is right, these two
dream-builders should be keeping financial regulators awake at night."
http://www.economist.com/node/3686475
So, what is it, Jeff, that you are trying to convince me of?
Are you trying to convince me that I'm wrong in concluding
that the people responsible include Clinton, Bush,
Greenspan, and the executives of the institutions involved?
El Castor
2017-10-12 20:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:17:53 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:32:42 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:45:43 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Why jail? Fannie and Freddie bought subprime loans at the behest of
their masters -- the politicians. The target of those loans were
Blacks, who for the most part were unable to realize the American
Dream of home ownership because they couldn't come up with 20%, but
once the loans were created they didn't have "Black Only" stamped on
them -- so loan officers couldn't restrict them by race. If you
qualified, you got the loan, and banks made those loans because they
could be sold. Everyone knew that housing was a great investment that
could only increase in value. We are doing the same thing today. Who,
specifically should be arrested?
By the way, since you blamed Bush -- please read this ...
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the
companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.
And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the
risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than
$1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
<Snip>
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
This effort by Bush was defeated. He tried again in 2006 -- this time
at the Senate level, and lost again. Should Bush go to jail? How about
the Republican (only Republican) senators who signed this letter --
jail for them, too?
""Dear Majority Leader Frist and Chainnan Shelby, We are concerned
that if effective regulatory refonn legislation for the
housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted
this year, American taxpayers will continue to'be exposed to the
enonnous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing
market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf
Who broke what law, and who should go to jail?
I think the executives of the institutions involved, or at
least some of them, should have been prosecuted. I haven't
suggested that any politicians broke any laws, or should be,
or should have been, prosecuted for the financial crisis of
2007-2008.
Here are a couple of articles that address the issue of how
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/
And here is a different side of the story ...
"San Jose State University Department of Economics
The Nature and The Origin of The Subprime Mortgage Crisis"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
It's long and incredible, but at least read the summary at the very
end.
It's been about 10 years since the 2008 banking collapse and
1. Determining who was to blame.
2. Determining who was responsible for the bailout.
3. Determining why some bankers weren't prosecuted.
In the article that you referenced, the author names
Franklin Raines and Timothy Howard as two people to blame. I
don't know if that's true, but I don't have any problem,
just off hand, adding them to my list of people to blame,
which includes Clinton, Bush, Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved.
Read the whole thing and you will understand exactly what happened.
Do you understand why the 4% and 0% down loans we are currently making
are not a good idea? How about the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and
Community Reinvestment Act? Understand the problem they created? As
for Greenspan, the fed lowering rates after the dot com bust wasn't in
itself a bad idea. It was the usual response to an economic downturn.
Problem was, it synergized with an already insane mortgage market.
Greenspan later did see disaster coming, and in Feb 2005 in testimony
before congress, he said, that by letting these two agencies grow
unchecked, “We are placing the total financial system of the future at
a substantial risk.”
The Economist in a 2005 article begins by saying ...
"The Fed's chairman, Alan Greenspan, has urged Congress to do
something to rein in America's two monster mortgage-finance agencies,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, before they put the country's financial
system at risk"
And concludes by saying ...
"Fannie Mae likes to say that “Our business is the American dream”.
Homeownership is undoubtedly popular with Americans and their
politicians. But if the Fed chairman is right, these two
dream-builders should be keeping financial regulators awake at night."
http://www.economist.com/node/3686475
So, what is it, Jeff, that you are trying to convince me of?
Are you trying to convince me that I'm wrong in concluding
that the people responsible include Clinton, Bush,
Greenspan, and the executives of the institutions involved?
Not Bush, Greenspan to a degree, Clinton yes, and especially liberals
who ended FHA red lining, passed the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the
Community Reinvestment Act, and twice refused Bush's efforts to rein
in Fannie and Freddie.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-12 12:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:17:53 -0700, El Castor
<snip>


Did you happen to notice the sun just before it set last night?
It was blood red - deep blood red, not light blood red - really
surprising. I've never seen the sun that colour before or
anywhere near it. Maybe it will happen again late this evening
if there's enough smoke in the air.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-10-12 14:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:17:53 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Did you happen to notice the sun just before it set last night?
It was blood red - deep blood red, not light blood red - really
surprising. I've never seen the sun that colour before or
anywhere near it. Maybe it will happen again late this evening
if there's enough smoke in the air.
El, it's 7:30 AM now and I can only see the sun from my
front window through the leaves and branches of a
neighboring tree as it's rising, but it's blood-red again.
and the atmosphere is very smoke-laden.
El Castor
2017-10-12 20:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:17:53 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Did you happen to notice the sun just before it set last night?
It was blood red - deep blood red, not light blood red - really
surprising. I've never seen the sun that colour before or
anywhere near it. Maybe it will happen again late this evening
if there's enough smoke in the air.
It's worse today. That stuff is toxic. Stay in your apartment and keep
the windows closed.
mg
2017-10-15 16:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:17:53 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:32:42 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:45:43 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:33:16 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:06:33 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/
Alleged fraud put JPMorgan Chase hundreds of millions of dollars
ahead; ordinary homeowners, not so much.
--
"One of the worst things about the politics
of the past 30 years`is that the rich have
forgotten to be afraid of the poor"
- Eric Hobsbawm"
Bankers never have been afraid of the poor, but they used to
--------------
"Elizabeth Warren Charges Big Bank CEOs Are Still Not Being
Held Accountable
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT,
Friday, 16 September 2016 06:34
". . . Elizabeth Warren wants the FBI and Justice Department
to explain why no bankers were prosecuted for the financial
crisis of eight years ago. . . ."
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/elizabeth-warren-charges-big-banks-are-still-engaging-in-illegal-practices
A Quote --
----------------------------------------------------
A young banker decided to get his first tailor-made suit. As he tried
it on, he reached down to put his hands in the pockets but to his
surprise found none.
He mentioned this to the tailor who asked him, "You're a banker,
right?" The young man answered, "Yes, I am."
"Well, whoever heard of a banker put his hand in his own pocket?"
As a former banker, this thread pisses me off, but here's a true story
you should enjoy. Back in the day, before my time, banks in California
were exempt from the annual license registration fee for their fleet
of company cars. The numbers on the plates began with the letters "PS"
which stood for "Public Service". (-8
Anyhow, don't like banks? Keep your money under the mattress.
I think there are two different kinds of banks that people
often talk about now days. The first type consists of
ordinary banks and the second type are the "Shadow Banks"
that have been blamed for causing the Great Recession. So,
when Elizabeth Warren asked the Obama Administration why
there were no prosecutions, for instance, she was obviously
talking about the Shadow Banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession#Shadow_banking_system
The "Great Recession" was caused by left wing inspired sub-prime
lending that made it possible to buy real estate with close to nothing
down. When real estate prices dropped well below the break-even point,
sub-prime borrowers found it foolish to continue paying $300,000 for a
house worth $225,000 -- and walked away, leaving the lender (or more
likely, the investor in mortgage loans) holding the bag. The wife and
I financed two purchases through the bank we worked for, were required
to put 20% down, and never missed a payment. And, by the way --
sub-prime mortgages are back.
"Do 100% loans exist in 2017? You bet they do. And there’s a good
chance that you qualify."
"Many new homebuyers wonder why most types of loans require a down
payment. Why can’t the bank just finance 100% of the home’s purchase
price? It all comes down to the fact that the bank, lender, or
investor wants to be paid back. After many studies, banks and lending
institutions have determined that the higher the down payment on a
loan, the lower the chances of the borrower defaulting. In fact, down
payment amount is more important in determining risk than even credit
score."
https://mymortgageinsider.com/100-financing-home-loans-zero-down-mortgage/
I think the people primarily responsible for the Great
Recession were Bill Clinton, George Bush, Alan Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved. I think those
executives should have gone to jail and I don't think the
banks should have been bailed out.
Why jail? Fannie and Freddie bought subprime loans at the behest of
their masters -- the politicians. The target of those loans were
Blacks, who for the most part were unable to realize the American
Dream of home ownership because they couldn't come up with 20%, but
once the loans were created they didn't have "Black Only" stamped on
them -- so loan officers couldn't restrict them by race. If you
qualified, you got the loan, and banks made those loans because they
could be sold. Everyone knew that housing was a great investment that
could only increase in value. We are doing the same thing today. Who,
specifically should be arrested?
By the way, since you blamed Bush -- please read this ...
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATONSEPT. 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the
companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business.
And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the
risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than
$1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."
<Snip>
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
This effort by Bush was defeated. He tried again in 2006 -- this time
at the Senate level, and lost again. Should Bush go to jail? How about
the Republican (only Republican) senators who signed this letter --
jail for them, too?
""Dear Majority Leader Frist and Chainnan Shelby, We are concerned
that if effective regulatory refonn legislation for the
housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted
this year, American taxpayers will continue to'be exposed to the
enonnous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing
market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/gse_reform_060505.pdf
Who broke what law, and who should go to jail?
I think the executives of the institutions involved, or at
least some of them, should have been prosecuted. I haven't
suggested that any politicians broke any laws, or should be,
or should have been, prosecuted for the financial crisis of
2007-2008.
Here are a couple of articles that address the issue of how
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/
And here is a different side of the story ...
"San Jose State University Department of Economics
The Nature and The Origin of The Subprime Mortgage Crisis"
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
It's long and incredible, but at least read the summary at the very
end.
It's been about 10 years since the 2008 banking collapse and
1. Determining who was to blame.
2. Determining who was responsible for the bailout.
3. Determining why some bankers weren't prosecuted.
In the article that you referenced, the author names
Franklin Raines and Timothy Howard as two people to blame. I
don't know if that's true, but I don't have any problem,
just off hand, adding them to my list of people to blame,
which includes Clinton, Bush, Greenspan and
the executives of the institutions involved.
Read the whole thing and you will understand exactly what happened.
Do you understand why the 4% and 0% down loans we are currently making
are not a good idea? How about the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and
Community Reinvestment Act? Understand the problem they created? As
for Greenspan, the fed lowering rates after the dot com bust wasn't in
itself a bad idea. It was the usual response to an economic downturn.
Problem was, it synergized with an already insane mortgage market.
Greenspan later did see disaster coming, and in Feb 2005 in testimony
before congress, he said, that by letting these two agencies grow
unchecked, “We are placing the total financial system of the future at
a substantial risk.”
The Economist in a 2005 article begins by saying ...
"The Fed's chairman, Alan Greenspan, has urged Congress to do
something to rein in America's two monster mortgage-finance agencies,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, before they put the country's financial
system at risk"
And concludes by saying ...
"Fannie Mae likes to say that “Our business is the American dream”.
Homeownership is undoubtedly popular with Americans and their
politicians. But if the Fed chairman is right, these two
dream-builders should be keeping financial regulators awake at night."
http://www.economist.com/node/3686475
I've always admired the Japanese for their tradition of
requiring that individuals take responsibility for their
mistakes, and I've always thought that here, in the US, we
have some strong communistic tendencies where we like to
diffuse responsibility among such a large community of
people that no one is ever responsible for anything and that
applies especially to the President where we do all sorts of
rationalizations to blame the opposite party, or someone
else, or anyone else, to make sure that the buck actually
never stops in the oval office.

me
2017-10-10 11:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I want to know why Barney Frank wasn’t prosecuted.
El Castor
2017-10-10 19:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I want to know why Barney Frank wasn’t prosecuted.
For breaking what law? Before you suggest we should jail the bankers,
are you aware that thosew bankers are required to report the race of
every person inquiring about a home loan, as well as the race of every
individual getting a loan. Wonder why that is. Should anyone who voted
for that law be prosecuted? Maybe we should prosecute everyone who
voted for the politicians who voted for such a law? Sigh. So many to
prosecute.
me
2017-10-10 19:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My feeble idea of jest. I know he didn’t break a law.
El Castor
2017-10-10 21:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My feeble idea of jest. I know he didn’t break a law.
I'm no fan of Barney, but he was just being a politician -- which last
I heard was not illegal, unless your name is Trump.
Loading...