The never-ending mortgage crisis

[W1GUH]

Article Title:

Foreclosure woes mount for those with good credit


Link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090528/ap_on_bi_ge/us_foreclosures



NEW YORK – A record 12 percent of homeowners with a mortgage are behind on their payments or in foreclosure as the housing crisis spreads to borrowers with good credit. And the wave of foreclosures isn't expected to crest until the end of next year, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Thursday.


And this, just after I kept reading the recession will be over this year. Yipes!

[KC2KFC]

Another BS "news" story. If you want the truth click here. (http://obama-recovery-plan.com/economic-stimulus-program/?fycid=4333&fyckw=stimulus&gclid=CKiLlZiK4JoCFQxM5QodwTmOCQ)

[W1GUH]

Wow! How could I ever be so mis-guided? I applied, have you? I should be getting a nice, fat check any day now. I'm going to rush out and buy a shiny, brandy new car. I'm rich!!!!

[KC2KFC]

Wow! How could I ever be so mis-guided? I applied, have you? I should be getting a nice, fat check any day now. I'm going to rush out and buy a shiny, brandy new car. I'm rich!!!!
We're all gonna be rich thanks to the economic stimulus plan that was passed. Woo Hoo! :lol: Happy days are here again.

[WØTKX]

Keep priming the pump as the well goes dry.

I keep looking at cheap houses. I'm renting cheap, waiting like a vulture. SO many empty houses, nobody knows what the story is... Especially small livable "beaters. Can't buy them, they just sit. Do ya think they are "toxic"? :think

[kq9j]

I WISH there was a foreclosure crisis around here. I keep looking for a good deal on a house with some land out in the country. No such animal. The houses around here are going for every penny they are worth. Unemployment is no higher than it was before the "crunch". If anything, prices are escalating. Sheesh.

[N2RJ]

I WISH there was a foreclosure crisis around here. I keep looking for a good deal on a house with some land out in the country. No such animal. The houses around here are going for every penny they are worth. Unemployment is no higher than it was before the "crunch". If anything, prices are escalating. Sheesh.

Around here prices are actually going down, but houses aren't moving and some of my neighbors have tall weeds in the yards of their unsold homes.

[W5GA]

Wow! How could I ever be so mis-guided? I applied, have you? I should be getting a nice, fat check any day now. I'm going to rush out and buy a shiny, brandy new car. I'm rich!!!!

Impossible...you can't be rich until you get the official Nigerian email telling you so!!!! :-?

[W1GUH]

Wow! How could I ever be so mis-guided? I applied, have you? I should be getting a nice, fat check any day now. I'm going to rush out and buy a shiny, brandy new car. I'm rich!!!!

Impossible...you can't be rich until you get the official Nigerian email telling you so!!!! :-?

That's part of the package. They promised me that, and soon's as I get it....Party Time!

[N4VGB]

Another BS "news" story. If you want the truth click here. (http://obama-recovery-plan.com/economic-stimulus-program/?fycid=4333&fyckw=stimulus&gclid=CKiLlZiK4JoCFQxM5QodwTmOCQ)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

[kd6nig]

Not surprising. Unemployment doesn't even come close to a living wage. Somebody loses a job and it changes....fast. Even someone making $400 a week who goes on UI and is suddenly capped at $325 or something can be in a world of hurt awfully quickly.

Put on top of that the fact that many people are honestly stretching their limits so they could have that bigger house, and the implosion is right there. A slight shift and thats it.

I know people where I work who had to take a paycut. Their salary didn't change, its just the 10 hours or so a week of overtime they usually got is gone now. They were so used to getting it, now the company has cut back and tightened the strings. For many people, even something as small as that is enough to start the slide.

We have a house at the end of the block that actually was inherited, but the people I guess hocked it. Its boarded up now with for sale sign in front of it. Yard is overgrown as heck. If someone stops at the stop sign there and flick a lit cig....that whole corner will be on fire.

Bad stuff.

[W2IBC]

" 1. Immediate action to create good jobs in america. " <- really i mean really? good jobs in america? after the bastards in washington did NOTHING to stop them from leaving?

" 2. Immediate relief for struggling families. " <- see #1 again all them jobs that left this country could have helped those said "struggling" families

" 3. Direct, immediate assistance for homeowners and business owners." so your going to bail out them business owners that sent all the jobs out of the country nice.

" 4. Rapid, aggressive response to our financial crisis, using tools such as Government Grants." how about quit spending f'ing money you dont have

[KC2KFC]

" 1. Immediate action to create good jobs in america. " <- really i mean really? good jobs in america? after the bastards in washington did NOTHING to stop them from leaving?

" 2. Immediate relief for struggling families. " <- see #1 again all them jobs that left this country could have helped those said "struggling" families

" 3. Direct, immediate assistance for homeowners and business owners." so your going to bail out them business owners that sent all the jobs out of the country nice.

" 4. Rapid, aggressive response to our financial crisis, using tools such as Government Grants." how about quit spending f'ing money you dont have
You guys just don't get it. Obama is making this happen. Just drive down the interstate and you will see thousands if not tens of thousands of newly employed workers rebuilding our infrastructure. He is helping people pay their mortgages so they don't default and lose their homes. The media is just covering all this up in order to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt into everybody's life.

[M0GLO]

This is just the beginning folks, the Shrub and his cronies barely kept it together to hand off to Obama so it's to be fully expected.

It's just downhill from here no matter who would have won.

[W2IBC]

You guys just don't get it. Obama is making this happen. Just drive down the interstate and you will see thousands if not tens of thousands of newly employed workers rebuilding our infrastructure. He is helping people pay their mortgages so they don't default and lose their homes. The media is just covering all this up in order to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt into everybody's life.

working

really??? are you that blind???? Obama has them working??? how is HE paying them??? the us government has NO money. now yes he just has the fed print more and more which makes the value of the dollar drop and drop. so alot of good its gonna due when hyper-inflation takes over and a damn dozen of eggs is $50.00

[W1GUH]

You guys just don't get it. Obama is making this happen. Just drive down the interstate and you will see thousands if not tens of thousands of newly employed workers rebuilding our infrastructure. He is helping people pay their mortgages so they don't default and lose their homes. The media is just covering all this up in order to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt into everybody's life.

working

really??? are you that blind???? Obama has them working??? how is HE paying them??? the us government has NO money. now yes he just has the fed print more and more which makes the value of the dollar drop and drop. so alot of good its gonna due when hyper-inflation takes over and a damn dozen of eggs is $50.00

Hey, he (President Obama) said it's working, I think, well...he must have, right? So it must be working. Aren't you in gravy by now? All of us are!

[sarcasm off] :)

[N8YX]

Aren't you in gravy by now? All of us are!
Does squirrel gravy count? :think

[W1GUH]

Aren't you in gravy by now? All of us are!
Does squirrel gravy count? :think

Maybe. That, and beaver gravy.

[N3ATS]

Maybe. That, and beaver gravy.

You don't want any of that, trust me. :shock:

[ki4itv]

working

really??? are you that blind???? Obama has them working??? how is HE paying them??? the us government has NO money. now yes he just has the fed print more and more which makes the value of the dollar drop and drop. so alot of good its gonna due when hyper-inflation takes over and a damn dozen of eggs is $50.00

Inflation is just around the corner for sure. With inventories being discounted right now just to move them, and reorders almost non-existant, it's only a matter of time.
As far as how all this is going to get paid for...
I think we're going to be seeing the letters VAT being tossed about rather vigorously in the coming months, with numbers like 10 and 15% being the starting bid.

This is not going to be pretty.

[N7YA]

Aren't you in gravy by now? All of us are!

[sarcasm off] :)



Yep, were all stewing in our own gravy.

[N7RJD]

so alot of good its gonna due when hyper-inflation takes over and a damn dozen of eggs is $50.00

It's those union chickens I tell ya. :lol: :lol:

[M0GLO]

You are basically in the eye of the storm right now, there is another round of mortgage resets due to start taking place in a month or so.
This round will be worse as the governments have tapped themselves out already bailing out the asshats who created the mess while leaving the public at large to twist in the wind.

Don't start unshuttering the homestead just yet, the winds are picking up again.

[N7YA]

No worries, i knew this to be the case when i saw Obama saying the worst is over...i figured it was nothing more than a request to not freak out. These government types have to be careful with that 'cry wolf' stuff. Folks may stop believing what they say. :lol:

[N3ATS]

Did anyone who was going to lose their homes actually benefit from this? Or was it all for the Banksters?

[M0GLO]

Did anyone who was going to lose their homes actually benefit from this? Or was it all for the Banksters?
Banksters 100%.
There were some token crumbs tossed to the homeowners, but it never even reached the level of 1% of the aid given to the Wall Street crowd that created the mess to start with.

[W1GUH]

"Said the salami to the bologna, the wurst is yet to come!"

Kinda points the finger at who pulls the strings?

[N3ATS]

Did anyone who was going to lose their homes actually benefit from this? Or was it all for the Banksters?
Banksters 100%.
There were some token crumbs tossed to the homeowners, but it never even reached the level of 1% of the aid given to the Wall Street crowd that created the mess to start with.

That's what I thought. :(

[N4VGB]

Did anyone who was going to lose their homes actually benefit from this? Or was it all for the Banksters?
Banksters 100%.
There were some token crumbs tossed to the homeowners, but it never even reached the level of 1% of the aid given to the Wall Street crowd that created the mess to start with.

Only those who got their mortgage funds via Fannie or Freddie were even qualified to apply for the so-called "mortgage assistance" plan King Obama put forth. ;)

I can't imagine why that was the single most important qualifier? :chin: :lol:

Gosh, almost looks like an admission from King Obama that what I previously posted was true, Fannie and Freddie ARE the "mortgage crisis". :whistle:

Just wait folks, they aren't finished milking that cow yet. Mortgage Crisis II will be coming to you soon. We Republicans tried to tell you in 2004 & 2006 Congressional hearings but you didn't want to hear it. :naughty

[M0GLO]

Dilmus, you keep spreading manure like that and all you are going to have is a field of shit.
The mortgage problem was just the trigger to it all, as has been explained to you ad nauseum the crisis is because the banks decided to collateralize the debt and then took out insurance policies that were worth up to a hundred times more than the debt itself.

[N4VGB]

Dilmus, you keep spreading manure like that and all you are going to have is a field of s***.
The mortgage problem was just the trigger to it all, as has been explained to you ad nauseum the crisis is because the banks decided to collateralize the debt and then took out insurance policies that were worth up to a hundred times more than the debt itself.

Actually Todd, it has been proven that the "insurance policies" could amount to 8-10 times the actual bad debt amount. :roll:

http://www.fanniemae.com/media/pdf/news ... elease.pdf (http://www.fanniemae.com/media/pdf/newsreleases/q12009_release.pdf)

Oh my, look how well Fannie Mae is doing these days, they only lost $23.2 billion in the first quarter of 2009. Yes indeed, they are doing better now. :whistle:

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provid ... id=9896143 (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=PR&date=20090512&id=9896143)

Oh look at this one, Freddie Mac is doing much better also, they only lost $9.9 billion in the first quarter of 2009. :whistle:

Yes Todd, the rubes here have become so comfortable with these idiots losing tons of taxpayer's dollars that this probably seems like good news to them. :lol:

Mortgage Crisis II is indeed just around the corner and then there will be Mortgage Crisis III. Yes friends, King Obama and Clown Prince Geithner are fanning the flames of the fire that burned this country down. Fannie Mae-bankrupt, Freddie Mac-bankrupt, Bank of America-bankrupt, Countrywide-bankrupt (don't forget that Bank of America and Countrywide are now a team, bankrupt Bank of America bought bankrupt Countrywide, most likely with your tax dollars). And all ARE insured by one of my favorites, AIG! :wall

[M0GLO]

Dilly, you are an idiot.
The totla cost of the fiasco has been estimated at 62 Trillion, the total in bad loans has been fixed at $2 Trillion for the last 6 months.

If you like living in a field of shit that's cool. I'll be moving on down the road, I don't cotton to the smell.

[N4VGB]

Dilly, you are an idiot.
The totla cost of the fiasco has been estimated at 62 Trillion, the total in bad loans has been fixed at $2 Trillion for the last 6 months.

If you like living in a field of s*** that's cool. I'll be moving on down the road, I don't cotton to the smell.

You certainly know how to contradict your own posts!? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your own post claimed these bad loans could total 100 times the original amount!? So $2 trillion could have been as much as $200 trillion!? :lol: :lol: :lol:

What a surprise, Todd trips over his own tongue again. :dance:

But the truth is that your European bankers have been found to be involved also and this whole mess did not completely originate in the U.S. European bankers have been proven to have been just as dirty in European business. :whistle:

Unlike some rubes on this board, I'm completely aware that YOU ARE NOT A BANKER, even though you've been able to con many here into believeing that you are. Now go make sure the operating system in the bank's computer is operating properly. Leave the banking to the real bankers there. :naughty

[KB1QBZ]

Only those who got their mortgage funds via Fannie or Freddie were even qualified to apply for the so-called "mortgage assistance" plan King Obama put forth.

So I have to ask. Are you a liar, or do you just purposely post things that you know are not true.

I would like you to identify the people who "got their mortgage funds via Fannie or Freddie". Please. Because your statement is a blatant lie since Fannie and Freddie don't make loans. They don't provide funds to any borrowers anywhere.

And let's remember, 75% of the loans in foreclosure or default never flowed through Fannie/Freddie. Were never touched by them. Had nothing to do with Fannie/Freddie.

[M0GLO]

So I have to ask. Are you a liar, or do you just purposely post things that you know are not true.

Both.

[N4VGB]

Only those who got their mortgage funds via Fannie or Freddie were even qualified to apply for the so-called "mortgage assistance" plan King Obama put forth.

So I have to ask. Are you a liar, or do you just purposely post things that you know are not true.

I would like you to identify the people who "got their mortgage funds via Fannie or Freddie". Please. Because your statement is a blatant lie since Fannie and Freddie don't make loans. They don't provide funds to any borrowers anywhere.

And let's remember, 75% of the loans in foreclosure or default never flowed through Fannie/Freddie. Were never touched by them. Had nothing to do with Fannie/Freddie.

First OM, what planet are you from?

The rules put in place by King Obama for his "mortgage assistance" program stipulate that your mortgage must have originated with funds from Fannie or Freddie to qualify for the program. I presume that your statement boils down to "King Obama is a idiot"? :mrgreen:

I agree! :mrgreen:

[WØTKX]

Very aware of the second "wave" to this crisis. I am working, saving and waiting.

http://sciences.aum.edu/students/lambchr/vulture.gif

[KB1QBZ]

Only those who got their mortgage funds via Fannie or Freddie were even qualified to apply for the so-called "mortgage assistance" plan King Obama put forth.

So I have to ask. Are you a liar, or do you just purposely post things that you know are not true.

I would like you to identify the people who "got their mortgage funds via Fannie or Freddie". Please. Because your statement is a blatant lie since Fannie and Freddie don't make loans. They don't provide funds to any borrowers anywhere.

And let's remember, 75% of the loans in foreclosure or default never flowed through Fannie/Freddie. Were never touched by them. Had nothing to do with Fannie/Freddie.

The rules put in place by King Obama for his "mortgage assistance" program stipulate that your mortgage must have originated with funds from Fannie or Freddie to qualify for the program.

Like I said, please identify the people who got their mortgage funds via Fannie or Freddie. Or for that matter, please identify the people who have mortgages that originated with funds from Fannie/Freddie. Or for that matter, please identify mortgages that originated with funds from Fannie/Freddie.

You can't because there aren't any and there never were any. And the phrase "... originated with funds from Fannie or Freddie ..." is a blatant lie.

There are a number of loan refinancing programs and loan modification programs that are supported by the Federal government. ONE of the programs (only one of them) is a program that refinances loans in good standing that are HELD by Fannie/Freddie -- meaning that Fannie/Freddie bought the loan after it was originated by a financial institution such as a bank or mortgage company. The loans have to meet various requirements (e.g., no more than 80% loan to book, current on payments).

Since Fannie and Freddie are owned by the Federal government, then the loans held by Fannie/Freddie are owned by the Federal government, and the Federal government can decide what it wants to do with those loans -- including directly refinancing them.

The Federal government cannot do the same for loans that are held by banks, investment banks, private partnerships, hedge funds, etc., etc., because neither the loans themselves nor the institutions that hold them are owned by the Federal government. Citibank, for example, is not owned by the Federal government (the Federal government has stock in Citibank, but that stock is not majority ownership as it is with GM).

The Federal government has created a number of programs to provide financial incentives for banks, investment banks, private partnerships, hedge funds, etc., etc. to either refinance existing loans or make modifications to the loans along the same lines as the program it established within Fannie/Freddie.

Saying that the Federal program is directed at people who got their funds from Fannie/Freddie is a lie since (a) nobody got their funds from Fannie/Freddie, and (b) it ignores all the other programs directed at loans that are not held by Fannie/Freddie.

[N4VGB]

Saying that the Federal program is directed at people who got their funds from Fannie/Freddie is a lie since (a) nobody got their funds from Fannie/Freddie, and (b) it ignores all the other programs directed at loans that are not held by Fannie/Freddie.



I already knew King Obama and Clown Prince Geithner were liars, you don'teed to keep harping on that one here. :mrgreen:

Wake up and smell the roses dude, mortgages are "bought" BEFORE you even get final approval on your mortgage package. It's like a dealer selling you a new car that he has on his lot via financing from the manufacturer. Your banker sells you a mortgage that he doesn't invest a dime in himself. :wall:

Now if you're a highly qualified buyer with a near perfect credit score and putting in 10-20%+ downpayment (that's according to the price of the home) on a home loan, your mortgage money will probably come from private investor funds and the U.S. government won't be involved at all. Bankers don't sell those type mortgages to the Feds. ;)

[KB1QBZ]

Wake up and smell the roses dude, mortgages are "bought" BEFORE you even get final approval on your mortgage package. It's like a dealer selling you a new car that he has on his lot via financing from the manufacturer. Your banker sells you a mortgage that he doesn't invest a dime in himself. :wall:

Now if you're a highly qualified buyer with a near perfect credit score and putting in 10-20%+ downpayment (that's according to the price of the home) on a home loan, your mortgage money will probably come from private investor funds and the U.S. government won't be involved at all. Bankers don't sell those type mortgages to the Feds. ;)

I don't know which is worse. The fact that you're desperately trying to change the subject, or the fact that you don't know squat about the mortgage process.

You're still ignoring the fact that 75% of the defaulted mortgages never went through Fannie/Freddie. That's three out of every four had nothing to do with Fannie/Freddie. Yet you keep talking about Fannie/Freddie as if they're the major component of the mortgage crisis when, in fact, they're not.

You're still ignoring the fact that the program you're referencing is only one of several that the Federal government is sponsoring, with all of the others being directed at loans that did not flow through Fannie/Freddie. Yet you keep talking about the Fannie/Freddie program as if it's the only one out there.

You're still ignoring the fact that the government can offer refinancing of loans bought by Fannie/Freddie because it owns Fannie/Freddie. It cannot directly offer refinancing of loans bought by other investors (e.g., private investors, banks) because it doesn't own those entities. Obviously, you would like for the government to nationalize Merrill and Citi and all those Enron-like private debt vehicles that were created by Citi and Merrill and Deutsche Bank and ...

The buyer doesn't know that the loan has been sold to Fannie or Freddie or anybody else. Fannie and Freddie never originated any loans -- they bought loans that were originated by the bank or mortgage company. So your statement is still a blatant lie, although I will admit that you were probably just cutting and pasting it from some republican talking point.

The bank/mortgage company is required to put up the money for the loan. The loan may then be bought by an investor such as Fannie or Freddie or a private investor, which includes the investment banks like Merrill and Citi that bought most of the really crappy loans. Note that Merrill, Citi, UBS, and some of the other big banks were the biggest investors in crappy loans, with Fannie and Freddie well down in the list (thus the fact that Fannie and Freddie together account for only 25% of the bad loans even though they've invested in over 45% of all the mortgages out there).

The bank/mortgage company originating the loan may get a commitment to buy from an investor before they finalize loan origination (realistically, they usually will if it's a loan that they're planning to sell), but (a) those "commitments" are at best tentative and the investor can back out, and (b) the banks (if not the mortgage companies) keep a certain of loans (i.e., do not sell them to investors) for their own investment purposes. Similarly, the mortgage companies did not sell all of the crap the underwrote -- which is the reason why so many of the mortgage companies went belly up.

Except maybe -- maybe -- for jumbo's, it's rare for a private investor to be able to offer better terms than those available on FHA/VA compliant loans and on Fannie/Freddie compliant loans, so they don't even try. An FHA/VA or Fannie/Freddie compliant loan is defined as one that meets the standards of "... a highly qualified buyer with a near perfect credit score and putting in 10-20%+ downpayment...". Thus, your statement is nonsense. Private investors are almost always investing in loans that are not as good as those that Fannie/Freddie invest in. Another reason why Fannie/Freddie invested in only 25% of the bad loans whereas private investors are invested in 75% of the bad loans.

A jumbo will likely go to private investors because Fannie/Freddie don't do jumbos, nor do FHA/VA. Many of the defaulted loans were jumbos and they went to private investors -- if for no other reason than the fact that neither Fannie nor Freddie nor FHA/VA would handle those loans to begin with.

And, as we know -- but you seem determined to avoid admitting -- 75% of the defaulted loans never passed through Fannie and Freddie and had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie.

[N4VGB]

And, as we know -- but you seem determined to avoid admitting -- 75% of the defaulted loans never passed through Fannie and Freddie and had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie.



Are you even remotely aware that the U.S. Government can say and do anything they damned well please? Skew the numbers, report totally false statistics, steal your money, etc.? Do you really believe that anyone in Washington D.C really wants to take credit for pushing mortgages that were doomed from day one to fail and WERE the ultimate root cause of the financial doom that befell us all?

Let me help you with some background. I have been playing "flip that house" for a long time OM. My wife is a realtor and was "top seller" at her brokerage house last year. Many of my personal friends are bankers and mortgage lenders. I know more than I'm supposed to know about the mortgage business.

You are soooo totally "out there" that you seem totally unaware that the most common mortgage today IS 100% with the buyer bringing not a single dime to the closing table, all closing costs and fees added to the selling price of the house. To help you understand more, I just sold one of my own "flip that house" houses today to a single young lady for $125K and being a "first time buyer" in a city neighborhood that is very old (house originally built in 1920), she is getting 5% financing at 100% with all closing costs and fees added to the sale price. All perfectly legal and all being actively pushed by the Obama administration. :D

Thanks Big O, don't think this sale would have happened without you? :chin:

Check into "first time buyers", city "neighborhood" programs and "rural development" programs for home buyers. Your eyes might be opened BUT that seems very unlikely in your case. :lol:

[KB1QBZ]

Are you even remotely aware that the U.S. Government can say and do anything they damned well please? Skew the numbers, report totally false statistics, steal your money, etc.? Do you really believe that anyone in Washington D.C really wants to take credit for pushing mortgages that were doomed from day one to fail and WERE the ultimate root cause of the financial doom that befell us all?

~/o paranoia strikes deep o/~ (with apologies to Stephen Stills).

Ooooooooooo. It's all a big government conspiracy to hide the truth. Those big baddies in Washington forced poor old Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide to make all those bad loans and to pay himself $300 million in bonuses on the bad loans. And they forced Kerry Killinger of WaMu to establish his strategy as catering to lower- and middle-class consumers that other banks deemed too risky. In fact, they forced him to pay himself $100 million or so in bonuses on the mortgages that WaMu wrote -- including terms that said that defaults were not subtracted against his bonus calculations. Wow, those big bad meanies in Washington, Whatever will they do next?

For that matter, what little paranoid fantasies are you going to tell us next? That Saddam Hussein had WMD? That 9/11 was an inside job by the bush administration? Maybe that it was all done by little green men from Mars?

Every last study that has been done shows that 75% (or more) of the bad loans never touched Fannie/Freddie. But somehow you know better even though you don't have a single statistic anywhere that says different.

Every last study ever done shows that the top 10 subprime and alt-a lenders were mortgage companies that weren't under any sort of government control. But somehow you know better even though you don't have a single statistic anywhere that says different.

Oh, wait a minute -- the bad mortgages were all made in 2005 and 2006 -- under the Republican administration of george w. bush (note, before the Democrats won back control of both houses). The ones that went south did so in 2007 and 2008, under the Republican administration of george w. bush. But according to you, somehow it must have been President Obama's fault even though he wasn't President at the time. Because you know. You have the "the truth".

And somehow, even though they legally don't originate mortgages, it was all mortgages originated by Fannie/Freddie. You know. You have "the truth".

And the figures I'm talking about were all pulled together in 2007 and 2008, while george w. bush was still President. But according to you, it was all lies pulled together by President Obama, even though he wasn't President at the time. Because you know. You have "the truth".

And a lot of those numbers didn't come from "the government". They came from private firms like Compliance Tech and ReatlyTrak. But according to you, those people were lying to cover for President Obama, who wasn't even President at the time that they did their surveys (in fact, he wasn't even the Democratic party nominee when some of these surveys were conducted). Because you know. You have "the truth".


Let me help you with some background. I have been playing "flip that house" for a long time OM. My wife is a realtor and was "top seller" at her brokerage house last year. Many of my personal friends are bankers and mortgage lenders. I know more than I'm supposed to know about the mortgage business.

Wow, you've flipped a house or two. Wow. And your wife is a realtor with intimate behind-the-scenes knowledge of Wall Street and the world-wide markets for mortgage-backed CDOs. Wow. And you know some people who maybe know some people out there in podunk who have intimate familiarity with Wall Street and the world-wide market for mortgage-backed CDOs. Wow.

And yet somehow you don't know squat about the mortgage market and you're posting horse-hockey, filled out with paranoid fantasies to try to explain away the fact that the actual numbers don't support your fantasies.

Wow.

Now let me help you with some background. I'm a consultant and much of my work is with mortgage originators. My clients include the mortgage lending arms of six of the largest homebuilders in the U.S., as well as a number of large banks. I've literally spent hundreds of hours with the senior executives of those institutions as well as hundreds and hundreds of hours working with the people who do the day-to-day work of packaging and selling loans to FHA, VA, Fannie, Freddie, Merrill, Citi, UBS, etc. I designed the Fannie/Freddie interfaces used by the mortgage arms of four of the biggest homebuilders and also used by hundreds of banks.


you seem totally unaware that the most common mortgage today IS 100% with the buyer bringing not a single dime to the closing table, all closing costs and fees added to the selling price of the house.

I didn't know that for a very simple reason: It's just not true.

To this day, the most common mortgage out there is a full 30 year fixed rate amortizing mortgage with a minimum of 20% down or less than 20% down but with PMI. Other than to first time buyers, the type of mortgage you're talking about was never more than 40% of the mortgage market. Unfortunately, a tremendous number of those 40% turned out to be bad loans.

Mortgages like you describe for first-time buyers were championed by this man, seen here in 2001 describing how he forced Fannie and Freddie to buy $440 BILLION in mortgages that did not meet their standards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sj ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related)

In case you don't recognize him, his name is george w. bush. But you can just refer to him as the architect of the Great Recession. It's easier that way since most people recognize him as such.


To help you understand more, I just sold one of my own "flip that house" houses today to a single young lady for $125K and being a "first time buyer" in a city neighborhood that is very old (house originally built in 1920), she is getting 5% financing at 100% with all closing costs and fees added to the sale price. All perfectly legal and all being actively pushed by the Obama administration.

As it was by the bush administration (see the youtube reference above). Please note that bush specifically mentions starting a program in which the Treasury pays down payments and closing costs for first-time buyers.

I don't know what neighborhood you're talking about, so I have no idea if $125K is a high price for the neighborhood and the house. It's certainly cheap for the neighborhood I live in -- or pretty much any neighborhood in CT.

I don't know what her income level is, so I have no way of knowing if she can afford the mortgage. At 5%, with closing costs and fees added, that works out to about $700/month P+I. Eminently affordable by someone who makes $50,000/year. $700/month is probably less than she's now paying in rent, and she gets the tax benefits from the interest.

Given what happened over the past few years, it's highly likely that both the originator and the investor (if any) carefully checked on her finances to make sure that she could afford the loan.

So what's the problem? Is it that she's young or that she's single.

But, interestingly enough, non-government statistics show that the default rate on CRA loans is very low. Was low before the debacle. Was low during the debacle. Shows signs of staying low after the debacle. But that's because CRA loans require extensive financial disclosure before they are made along with credit counseling, and require on-going credit counseling during the life of the loan. If the default rate on non-CRA loans was as good as the rate on CRA loans, there wouldn't be a Great Recession underway right now.


Thanks Big O, don't think this sale would have happened without you?

You're right. Under george w. bush and the rapine Republicans, she would have gotten $150,000 in mortgage with no income verification and no amortization (i.e., interest only), but only if she had no income and a mountain of debt.


Check into "first time buyers", city "neighborhood" programs and "rural development" programs for home buyers. Your eyes might be opened BUT that seems very unlikely in your case.

Perhaps you should since programs like that have proven themselves to have low default rates when run by responsible banks/mortgage lenders using credit guidelines set up by Fannie, Freddie, FHA, VA, Office of Thrift Supervision, etc. Too bad that the top 10 subprime lenders in the U.S. (2002-2007) didn't bother to follow those rules.

Wow, you've flipped a house or two. Wow. And your wife is a realtor with intimate behind-the-scenes knowledge of Wall Street and the world-wide markets for mortgage-backed CDOs. Wow. And you know some people who maybe know some people out there in podunk who have intimate familiarity with Wall Street and the world-wide market for mortgage-backed CDOs. Wow.

And yet somehow you don't know squat about the mortgage market and you're posting horse-hockey, filled out with paranoid fantasies to try to explain away the fact that the actual numbers don't support your fantasies.

Wow.
He never ceases to amaze. Just when you think no one could be that, ... well, Tennessean, he just gets better and better.

[N4VGB]

Perhaps you should since programs like that have proven themselves to have low default rates when run by responsible banks/mortgage lenders using credit guidelines set up by Fannie, Freddie, FHA, VA, Office of Thrift Supervision, etc. Too bad that the top 10 subprime lenders in the U.S. (2002-2007) didn't bother to follow those rules.



I KNEW IT!!! This whole "mortgage crisis" and "financial crisis" is just another Republican plot!!! AND that damnable Obama is just another Republican!!! Now I understand why the whole game is continuing like nothing ever happened, because nothing ever did happen, according to your posts, and everything is just fine in the mortgage and financial world. :whistle:

Golly, I feel better knowing that all the experts are in control and there is absolutely no problem. Thanks.

[n2ize]

Wow, you've flipped a house or two. Wow. And your wife is a realtor with intimate behind-the-scenes knowledge of Wall Street and the world-wide markets for mortgage-backed CDOs. Wow. And you know some people who maybe know some people out there in podunk who have intimate familiarity with Wall Street and the world-wide market for mortgage-backed CDOs. Wow.

And yet somehow you don't know squat about the mortgage market and you're posting horse-hockey, filled out with paranoid fantasies to try to explain away the fact that the actual numbers don't support your fantasies.

Wow.
He never ceases to amaze. Just when you think no one could be that, ... well, Tennessean, he just gets better and better.

And rest assured he's not through yet. he'll be back with another episode.

[N4VGB]

And rest assured he's not through yet. he'll be back with another episode.



Why do you care? Just smoke another joint and all is well in your world. :mrgreen:

[KB1QBZ]

Perhaps you should since programs like that have proven themselves to have low default rates when run by responsible banks/mortgage lenders using credit guidelines set up by Fannie, Freddie, FHA, VA, Office of Thrift Supervision, etc. Too bad that the top 10 subprime lenders in the U.S. (2002-2007) didn't bother to follow those rules.



I KNEW IT!!! This whole "mortgage crisis" and "financial crisis" is just another Republican plot!!! AND that damnable Obama is just another Republican!!! Now I understand why the whole game is continuing like nothing ever happened, because nothing ever did happen, according to your posts, and everything is just fine in the mortgage and financial world. :whistle:

Golly, I feel better knowing that all the experts are in control and there is absolutely no problem. Thanks.

Wow. You're just really losing it.

At last count, there's about $1.5 trillion in defaults. Fannie and Freddie together invested in (or guaranteed) about 25% of them. You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not even aware of the fact that 75% of the defaulted loans never went through Fannie/Freddie -- something even Allan Greenspan has admitted..

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not even aware of the fact that the majority of mortgages written in the U.S. are 30 year conventional with significant downpayments.

You post vile and vitriol about someone getting a first-time loan under a program set up by george w. bush, and blame President Obama for it. You post nothing about her financial situation, yet post as if there is a major problem with the loan even though it's one that someone earning only $50,000/year should be able to handle without a problem.

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not aware that there's something called a Fannie Mae conforming loan, which is a 30 year self-amortizing loan to people with good credit and documented income that is sufficient to cover the loan + taxes, requires a substantial down-payment, and is limited in amount to something in the $400,000 or $500,000 range (I'm feeling too lazy to look up the exact amount).

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not aware that there is a low rate of defaults on Fannie Mae conforming loans, just as there is a low rate of default on Freddie Mac conforming loans (similar numbers), FHA conforming loans, VA conforming loans, and loans made under CRA.

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not aware of the fact that the top 10 subprime and alt-a lenders in each Federal Reserve District were mortgages companies (who were not subject to CRA) rather than banks.

What else don't you know?

[N4VGB]

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not aware that there is a low rate of defaults on Fannie Mae conforming loans, just as there is a low rate of default on Freddie Mac conforming loans (similar numbers), FHA conforming loans, VA conforming loans, and loans made under CRA.



YEP, Fannie and Freddie are great. Hell, they've improved so much lately that they've only lost $30+ billion in the first quarter of 2009. :dance:

I hope that you give any investment funds that you have to Berkshire-Hathaway to handle for you, I do not advise that you handle your own investments. :roll:

You and our resident expert "investment banker" over in London should get together and make a fortune together. Be careful though, he's not actually a banker of any type. :mrgreen:

[n2ize]

Perhaps you should since programs like that have proven themselves to have low default rates when run by responsible banks/mortgage lenders using credit guidelines set up by Fannie, Freddie, FHA, VA, Office of Thrift Supervision, etc. Too bad that the top 10 subprime lenders in the U.S. (2002-2007) didn't bother to follow those rules.



I KNEW IT!!! This whole "mortgage crisis" and "financial crisis" is just another Republican plot!!! AND that damnable Obama is just another Republican!!! Now I understand why the whole game is continuing like nothing ever happened, because nothing ever did happen, according to your posts, and everything is just fine in the mortgage and financial world. :whistle:

Golly, I feel better knowing that all the experts are in control and there is absolutely no problem. Thanks.

Wow. You're just really losing it.

At last count, there's about $1.5 trillion in defaults. Fannie and Freddie together invested in (or guaranteed) about 25% of them. You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not even aware of the fact that 75% of the defaulted loans never went through Fannie/Freddie -- something even Allan Greenspan has admitted..

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not even aware of the fact that the majority of mortgages written in the U.S. are 30 year conventional with significant downpayments.

You post vile and vitriol about someone getting a first-time loan under a program set up by george w. bush, and blame President Obama for it. You post nothing about her financial situation, yet post as if there is a major problem with the loan even though it's one that someone earning only $50,000/year should be able to handle without a problem.

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not aware that there's something called a Fannie Mae conforming loan, which is a 30 year self-amortizing loan to people with good credit and documented income that is sufficient to cover the loan + taxes, requires a substantial down-payment, and is limited in amount to something in the $400,000 or $500,000 range (I'm feeling too lazy to look up the exact amount).

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not aware that there is a low rate of defaults on Fannie Mae conforming loans, just as there is a low rate of default on Freddie Mac conforming loans (similar numbers), FHA conforming loans, VA conforming loans, and loans made under CRA.

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not aware of the fact that the top 10 subprime and alt-a lenders in each Federal Reserve District were mortgages companies (who were not subject to CRA) rather than banks.

What else don't you know?

Oh... you'd be amazed !!! :mrgreen:

[ae6ip]

Wow. You're just really losing it.


You're wasting your time. Dilmus just says whatever he thinks is most likely to get a rise out of you.

You'd be better off shouting down a well than responding to him.

[N7RJD]

You'd be better off shouting down a well than responding to him.

I thought about doing that but was afraid little Jimmy would yell back. :lol:

[KB1QBZ]

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not aware that there is a low rate of defaults on Fannie Mae conforming loans, just as there is a low rate of default on Freddie Mac conforming loans (similar numbers), FHA conforming loans, VA conforming loans, and loans made under CRA.



YEP, Fannie and Freddie are great. Hell, they've improved so much lately that they've only lost $30+ billion in the first quarter of 2009. :dance:

I hope that you give any investment funds that you have to Berkshire-Hathaway to handle for you, I do not advise that you handle your own investments. :roll:

You and our resident expert "investment banker" over in London should get together and make a fortune together. Be careful though, he's not actually a banker of any type. :mrgreen:

Wow.

You claim to understand the mortgage market, yet aren't aware of the fact that the big banks/brokerages like Citi, BofA, UBS, Deutche Bank, etc. in total lost 10 times that on their mortgage backed CDOs, even though the total of their portfolios of mortgage-backed CDOs is less than the total of the portfolio held by Fannie and Freddie.

If this is what you learn from your friends in the business (including your wife), then maybe you need to get a new set of friends (and maybe a new wife), since together their knowledge of the mortgage business isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Oh, please don't show your ignorance by replying that Citi or BofA or whatever reported profits last month. They were all very specific in reporting losses in their mortgage-backed CDO portfolios.

[N4VGB]

Oh, please don't show your ignorance by replying that Citi or BofA or whatever reported profits last month. They were all very specific in reporting losses in their mortgage-backed CDO portfolios.



I have no interest in Citi or BoA and have never done business with either. I believe that you are the one that could tell us much about Citi? Not that I give a rat's arse. :mrgreen:

You can't conceive my point of view, it's obvious why from your checkered employment record. I was employed for 33 years with the same employer but always maintained entrepreneurial interests of my own. My employment provided the capital for making real money in other ventures and the stock market, and my employer's savings plan and very sweet early retirement plan made retirement a no-brainer for me. We can't effectively communicate because I'm an old school, hardcore, free market businessman. We currently own one small business that has essentially failed in my view. Our former employees are gone now, the business only generates enough gross income to barely provide a small net income to us and nothing but a stubborn streak in me keeps the lights on at the place. The info I have about you suggests that you are an "Obama type", your education and employment record indicate to me that you believe yourself to be on top of it all and that if the world would only listen to your now very old spiel, all will be well in the world. Rots o' ruck to you and Obama on this approach.

It's all just a game to me at this point in my life. At a 1% yield I can live well, at a 2% or higher yield I can live very well. The truth is, I'm completely useless these days! :dance:
I haven't done one productive thing today and may not do one productive thing tomorrow? :chin: Usually 2 days of "kicked back and relaxed" is all the wife allows and then she'll create a job for me. :(

[n2ize]

You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not aware that there is a low rate of defaults on Fannie Mae conforming loans, just as there is a low rate of default on Freddie Mac conforming loans (similar numbers), FHA conforming loans, VA conforming loans, and loans made under CRA.



YEP, Fannie and Freddie are great. Hell, they've improved so much lately that they've only lost $30+ billion in the first quarter of 2009. :dance:

I hope that you give any investment funds that you have to Berkshire-Hathaway to handle for you, I do not advise that you handle your own investments. :roll:

You and our resident expert "investment banker" over in London should get together and make a fortune together. Be careful though, he's not actually a banker of any type. :mrgreen:

Wow.

You claim to understand the mortgage market, yet aren't aware of the fact that the big banks/brokerages like Citi, BofA, UBS, Deutche Bank, etc. in total lost 10 times that on their mortgage backed CDOs, even though the total of their portfolios of mortgage-backed CDOs is less than the total of the portfolio held by Fannie and Freddie.

If this is what you learn from your friends in the business (including your wife), then maybe you need to get a new set of friends (and maybe a new wife), since together their knowledge of the mortgage business isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Oh, please don't show your ignorance by replying that Citi or BofA or whatever reported profits last month. They were all very specific in reporting losses in their mortgage-backed CDO portfolios.

I hope you are not expecting a sensible response from this troll. Most likely he'll start launching some personal attacks against you once you have him backed far enough into a corner. At that point you can basically conclude that you've won the debate.

[KB1QBZ]

I have no interest in Citi or BoA

Of course not. Because if you actually looked past the end of your nose, you'd have to discover that 75% of all the bad loans went through Citi and BofA and Salomon and Lehman and UBS and ... and not through Fannie/Freddie. And that would mean your looking at who originated all those bad loans and you'd discover that the vast majority of them were originated through totally free enterprise by mortgage companies and banks in programs that were completely and totally unregulated. Worst, you'd discover that the loans made to minorities and low-income borrowers under government programs like CRA are orders of magnitude more stable and more reliable than the loans made by those paragons of free enterprise like Countrywide and Ameriquest.


it's obvious why from your checkered employment record

My checkered employment record?? Employed continually (W-2, not 1099) for the last 39 years. Four employers during that entire time, and recruited from the previous employer each time. For the past five years, until I took semi-retirement a few months ago (I'm now down to working only 40 hours a week), I was in charge of a line of business that I grew from about $1 million/year in revenue to $16 million in revenue and a 20% gross profit margin -- a separate company within the company responsible for its own staffing, funding, sales, collections, and payroll.


I'm an old school, hardcore, free market businessman.

Thanks. We've seen just what free market businessmen can do. The idiotic loans that destroyed so many financial institutions were created by mortgage companies and banks operating as free market businessmen with no government intervention, no government regulation, and no government pressures. The doubly idiotic investing in those loans by the Citibanks and Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns of the world -- -- all free market businessmen with no government intervention, no government regulation, and no government pressures. The triply quadruply idiot creation of Credit Default Swaps that brought down the world's financial markets -- -- all free market businessmen with no government intervention, no government regulation, and no government pressures.

Your free market businessmen created the monopolies and product defects that almost killed this country in the late 1800s. It created the Great Depression of 1929. And it created the Great Recession of 2008. You may not want to open your eyes and recognize it, but it's clear from the numbers that 65-70% of all Americans see it and understand that the choice was between President Obama's approach and Republicans leading us into a second Great Depression.

But you are right about one thing, you are totally useless.

[N4VGB]

Of course not. Because if you actually looked past the end of your nose, you'd have to discover that 75% of all the bad loans went through Citi and BofA and Salomon and Lehman and UBS and ... and not through Fannie/Freddie. And that would mean your looking at who originated all those bad loans and you'd discover that the vast majority of them were originated through totally free enterprise by mortgage companies and banks in programs that were completely and totally unregulated. Worst, you'd discover that the loans made to minorities and low-income borrowers under government programs like CRA are orders of magnitude more stable and more reliable than the loans made by those paragons of free enterprise like Countrywide and Ameriquest.

But you are right about one thing, you are totally useless.



I guess someone forgot to tell you that BoA and Countrywide are one in the same? Not only that but Countrywide has been bankrupt for a long time and operates mostly from Fannie & Freddie funds, you don't really think private investors are rushing to put money into Countrywide? Again I must ask, what planet are you from? Either that or you are working too much and have no time to keep track of current events.

Here, I'll even throw you a bone so you can catch up on the relationship between Fannie, Freddie and Countrywide. http://www.businessinsider.com/angelo-m ... ers-2009-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/angelo-mozilo-explains-how-fannie--freddie-were-his-enablers-2009-5)

[KB1QBZ]

I guess someone forgot to tell you that BoA and Countrywide are one in the same? Not only that but Countrywide has been bankrupt for a long time and operates mostly from Fannie & Freddie funds, you don't really think private investors are rushing to put money into Countrywide? Again I must ask, what planet are you from? Either that or you are working too much and have no time to keep track of current events.

Wow. You supposedly have a wife in real estate. You supposedly have friends who are bankers and mortgage brokers. You supposedly have a lot of "experience" with mortgages.

And it turns out that you still don't know squat about the mortgage business.

For example, BofA and Countrywide didn't merge until July 1, 2008 after the secondary mortgage market for subprimes fell apart in 2007. That means that when Countrywide issued all those bad loans in 2005 and 2006 (the ones that defaulted on the resets in 2007 and 2008), it was a completely separate entity from BofA. Or, to put it differently, the fact that BofA eventually bought Countrywide has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion because the purchase didn't happen until after all the damage had been done.

But of course you had to post a red herring like that given that you're desperate to try to change the subject now that you're busted.


Here, I'll even throw you a bone so you can catch up on the relationship between Fannie, Freddie and Countrywide. http://www.businessinsider.com/angelo-m ... ers-2009-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/angelo-mozilo-explains-how-fannie--freddie-were-his-enablers-2009-5)

Wow. A lot of words in that article but absolutely no numbers or references to back them up. Not a single one. But the article itself is an egregious and obvious lie since Mozilo was very clear in his sworn testimony to Congress that while Fannie/Freddie were big buyers of his conforming loans, they were NOT big buyers of Countrywide's subprime and alt-a loans. In fact Mozilo was very clear that the bulk of his subprime and alt-a loans were sold to Wall Street (especially Merrill) and not Fannie/Freddie.

Oh by the way, we also know from both the Fed and from other sources that Freddie and Fannie bought about 44 percent of all the subprime loans in 2004, but only 33 percent in 2005, and only 22 percent in 2006. That means that 67% of the 2005 loans and 78% of the 2006 loans (the ones that went bad and caused the crisis) were bought by entities other than Fannie/Freddie -- those others entities being Wall Street banks and investment banks like Merrill, Citi, UBS, Lehman, Bear, etc., etc. In fact, we know from Fed sources that Merrill was the single largest buyer of subprime loans in the period 2005-2007. Much bigger than Fannie and Freddie put together.

But hey, there are only about four or five other big lies in your businessinsider article. Lies that someone like you who claims to know something about the mortgage markets should have spotted on a cursory read. But I guess we've already determined that you know squat.

[kd6nig]

While you guys debate this, silently oil is almost to $70 this morning :)

Obviously some people still have investment capital...

[N4VGB]

But hey, there are only about four or five other big lies in your businessinsider article. Lies that someone like you who claims to know something about the mortgage markets should have spotted on a cursory read. But I guess we've already determined that you know squat.



BoA actually announced their purchase of Countrywide in Jan. '08. To me, BoA now represents the merger of losers in the U.S. financial/mortgage market. Good grief they bought Merrill Lynch also! But apparently Obama/Geithner are perfectly willing to pour as many billions of taxpayers dollars into BoA as it takes to save all the losers.

Fannie & Freddie were seized by Fed regulators and placed under conservatorship. The resultant plan was and is to reduce their share of the mortgage market. I thought everybody knew all this?

The whole idea that U.S. taxpayers should provide the funds for ANY mortgages is total stupidity. The whole idea that U.S. taxpayers should "bailout" any company or individual from financial crisis brought upon themselves is total stupidity.

Now there are some borderline situations where government can effectively help private companies that are very large employers in the U.S., as was demonstrated when Chrysler needed loan guarantees in the '80s to successfully secure private loans to save itself. As I recall Chrysler stock plummeted to less than $1 a share before the plan was announced to provide the loan guarantees to them and I bought every share that I could afford. That one worked out very well for me. :D

The current trend of intervention into business by Obama/Geithner is nothing like the situation with Chrysler in the '80s. The current plan for Chrysler has the Canadian and U.S. government providing taxpayer's dollars to very much subsidize Fiat taking Chrysler. Hell's bells, I'll be glad to purchase any U.S. industry that the U.S. government is willing to pay for on my behalf! I can't lose on that deal! :lol:

[KB1QBZ]

To me, BoA now represents the merger of losers in the U.S. financial/mortgage market.

Well that's good. It shows that you're finally admitting that the majority source of losses in the financial/mortgage market was private companies and not Fannie/Freddie.

I know that admitting it must take a great deal out of you. But this is a good start on your getting in touch with reality.


The whole idea that U.S. taxpayers should provide the funds for ANY mortgages is total stupidity.

Well, this guy seems to disagree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sj ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related)


The whole idea that U.S. taxpayers should "bailout" any company or individual from financial crisis brought upon themselves is total stupidity.

Well, fortunately there are people who understand the damage that letting institutions like AIG fail and they took the necessary action. Thus we have a Great Recession rather than a Great Depression. But I'm sure that if we ever want to have a second world-wide Depression that our leaders will call on you.

Realistically, one of the jobs of the Federal government is to protect the people from the worst ravages of unrestrained free market businessmen (e.g., Sherman Anti-Trust, SEC, FTC, FDA) because they understand how events like the Great Depression almost ripped the country apart. Had our elected officials done their job in 2002-2007, we wouldn't have to be bailing out companies as we are in order to preserve our financial system. Or, as the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[N1LAF]

Your free market businessmen created the monopolies and product defects that almost killed this country in the late 1800s. It created the Great Depression of 1929.

But you are right about one thing, you are totally useless.

And you are wrong about the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930's, you know...


And it created the Great Recession of 2008. You may not want to open your eyes and recognize it, but it's clear from the numbers that 65-70% of all Americans see it and understand that the choice was between President Obama's approach and Republicans leading us into a second Great Depression.

Yup, right direction, as follows: June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,� Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.�

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... KluP7yIwJY (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY)

[N1LAF]

At last count, there's about $1.5 trillion in defaults. Fannie and Freddie together invested in (or guaranteed) about 25% of them. You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not even aware of the fact that 75% of the defaulted loans never went through Fannie/Freddie -- something even Allan Greenspan has admitted..


So, are you saying that 25% failure rate is a good thing? 25% in these institutions, compared to 75% of other institutions, now how many 'other' institutions are there? Failure rate per institution?

Was the Bush Administration correct in saying that FM/FM had problems and needed attention, or was Barney Frank correct and saying 'no problem, no attention needed...'????

Can you be honest about this, and not act like a partisan hack?

[n2ize]

At last count, there's about $1.5 trillion in defaults. Fannie and Freddie together invested in (or guaranteed) about 25% of them. You claim to know a lot about the mortgage business, yet you're not even aware of the fact that 75% of the defaulted loans never went through Fannie/Freddie -- something even Allan Greenspan has admitted..


So, are you saying that 25% failure rate is a good thing? 25% in these institutions, compared to 75% of other institutions, now how many 'other' institutions are there? Failure rate per institution?

Was the Bush Administration correct in saying that FM/FM had problems and needed attention, or was Barney Frank correct and saying 'no problem, no attention needed...'????

Can you be honest about this, and not act like a partisan hack?

I don't think he's acting like a partisan hack at all. Nor saying 25% is good. I hate to say it but I thing you're the one throwing in the partisan politics. But I'll let QBZ speak for himself. So far he seems to be carrying along just fine,

[n2ize]

Your free market businessmen created the monopolies and product defects that almost killed this country in the late 1800s. It created the Great Depression of 1929.

But you are right about one thing, you are totally useless.

And you are wrong about the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930's, you know...



The bigger culprit in the great depressions was liberal government interering in free enterprise which caused a market implosion. There was no better example of whu things like regulation, labour laws, etc. are a bad thing for the economy.


And it created the Great Recession of 2008. You may not want to open your eyes and recognize it, but it's clear from the numbers that 65-70% of all Americans see it and understand that the choice was between President Obama's approach and Republicans leading us into a second Great Depression.



Yup, right direction, as follows: June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S8. jobs more expensive,� Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.�

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... KluP7yIwJY (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY)
[/quote]

Actually they are better off taking those jobs overseas regardless of taxation. The labour market is abundant and far cheaper than here in the states. The American worker needs to stop being so greedy. Why should an engineer, an IT person, or, any worker for that matter receive anything above minimum wage, let alone benefits, etc.

[KB1QBZ]

So, are you saying that 25% failure rate is a good thing? 25% in these institutions, compared to 75% of other institutions, now how many 'other' institutions are there? Failure rate per institution?

Can you be honest about this, and not act like a partisan hack?[/quote]

You're just desperately trying to steer away from the basic topic, so let's go back to the topic.

The topic was the relative responsibility of Fannie/Freddie vs. Wall Street for the mortgage meltdown, with you claiming that Fannie/Freddie were the primary cause of the meltdown.

The numbers show that Fannie/Freddie together securitized or guaranteed close to 50% of all mortgages in the U.S., but had only 25% of the defaults. Wall Street, on the other hand, securitized the other 50% of the mortgages, but had 75% of all the defaults. That tells me that Fannie and Freddie were not the primary cause of the meltdown problem -- not with only 25% of the bad loans. Even Hank Paulson has admitted that if the problem was only Fannie/Freddie then it would have been a stumble and not a Great Recession since Fannie/Freddie together didn't have enough defaults to cause the disruptions we've seen.

We do know that Merrill, Citi, and UBS had particularly high rates of failure on the loans they securitized -- much higher than Fannie and Freddie.

Whether 25% is good or bad is not the issue. The issue is relative performance, and relative to Wall Street Fannie/Freddie had a much better performance and were responsible for securitization of far fewer bad loans.

Gotta go to dinner, I'll respond to your other point later tonight.

[kf0rt]

Yup, right direction, as follows: June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,� Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.�

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... KluP7yIwJY (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY)

Is that the same Steve Ballmer who said that no engineer was worth over $50K a few years ago?

[ae6ip]

Repeat after me: "Mortgage defaults did not cause the meltdown."

If you don't understand that, than you simply don't get what's going on with the economy.

[WØTKX]

Is that the same Steve Ballmer who said that no manager was worth over $50K a few years ago?

Fixed that for ya... ;)

[N1LAF]

Repeat after me: "Mortgage defaults did not cause the meltdown."

If you don't understand that, than you simply don't get what's going on with the economy.

Thats your opinion.

[N1LAF]

So, are you saying that 25% failure rate is a good thing? 25% in these institutions, compared to 75% of other institutions, now how many 'other' institutions are there? Failure rate per institution?

Can you be honest about this, and not act like a partisan hack?

You're just desperately trying to steer away from the basic topic, so let's go back to the topic.

The topic was the relative responsibility of Fannie/Freddie vs. Wall Street for the mortgage meltdown, with you claiming that Fannie/Freddie were the primary cause of the meltdown.

The numbers show that Fannie/Freddie together securitized or guaranteed close to 50% of all mortgages in the U.S., but had only 25% of the defaults. Wall Street, on the other hand, securitized the other 50% of the mortgages, but had 75% of all the defaults. That tells me that Fannie and Freddie were not the primary cause of the meltdown problem -- not with only 25% of the bad loans. Even Hank Paulson has admitted that if the problem was only Fannie/Freddie then it would have been a stumble and not a Great Recession since Fannie/Freddie together didn't have enough defaults to cause the disruptions we've seen.

We do know that Merrill, Citi, and UBS had particularly high rates of failure on the loans they securitized -- much higher than Fannie and Freddie.

Whether 25% is good or bad is not the issue. The issue is relative performance, and relative to Wall Street Fannie/Freddie had a much better performance and were responsible for securitization of far fewer bad loans.

Gotta go to dinner, I'll respond to your other point later tonight.

Excellent post! Not steering away from the topic, but I see the discrepancy. It is not that FM/FM started the mess, but they were the flash point that started the dominos to fall that were about to. I think a lot had a lot to do with confidence, if the Gov't backed company had a high failure rate, then others too, and down they went. In fact, before FM/FM, I believe it was Indy Mac with Kerry blabbing about it started the dominos to fall. What started it and what was the root causes, many believe it was lowering the bar to purchase homes, those buying homes they could not afford or barely with .promises' that equity can be realized and house prices was up and up. Some will also point to Barney Frank as the main driver in lowering the bar, intimidating other institutions that were slow or did not bend to lower the bar. To say there was one thing, or its all the republicans fault, I think its dishonest. And neither is it all Barney Franks fault either. Dodd, broiled in the Contrywide controversy, as you know, as well as this issue has really hurt him in this state.

We also should not trivialize those institutions that had 25% defaults, as not important. When you take the other 75% and spread it around to other institutions, it makes the 25% in one company become more significant.

[N1LAF]

Your free market businessmen created the monopolies and product defects that almost killed this country in the late 1800s. It created the Great Depression of 1929.

But you are right about one thing, you are totally useless.

And you are wrong about the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930's, you know...



The bigger culprit in the great depressions was liberal government interering in free enterprise which caused a market implosion. There was no better example of whu things like regulation, labour laws, etc. are a bad thing for the economy.


And it created the Great Recession of 2008. You may not want to open your eyes and recognize it, but it's clear from the numbers that 65-70% of all Americans see it and understand that the choice was between President Obama's approach and Republicans leading us into a second Great Depression.



Yup, right direction, as follows: June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S8. jobs more expensive,� Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.�

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... KluP7yIwJY (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY)


Actually they are better off taking those jobs overseas regardless of taxation. The labour market is abundant and far cheaper than here in the states. The American worker needs to stop being so greedy. Why should an engineer, an IT person, or, any worker for that matter receive anything above minimum wage, let alone benefits, etc.[/quote]

You can say that you don't know, no one will get on your case for not knowing...
:mrgreen:

[ae6ip]

Repeat after me: "Mortgage defaults did not cause the meltdown."

If you don't understand that, than you simply don't get what's going on with the economy.

Thats your opinion.

The quoted sentence is well documented, and not merely my opinion. The second sentence is my opinion but it's a well informed one.

The liquidity crisis, and the meltdown that panicked Poulsen, were not caused by the increase in mortgage defaults.

Nor were most of the malaise in the economy.

Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand what did cause the liquidity crisis, or why the liquidity crisis turned into an economic meltdown.

[ae6ip]

Excellent post! Not steering away from the topic, but I see the discrepancy. It is not that FM/FM started the mess, but they were the flash point that started the dominos to fall that were about to.

Nope. Not even close.


What started it and what was the root causes, many believe it was lowering the bar to purchase homes, those buying homes they could not afford or barely with .promises' that equity can be realized and house prices was up and up.

Nope. Not even close.

Another Frightening Show About the Economy (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263) on This American Life is a very approachable program that goes into detail about what the meltdown was, how it happened, and the failure of regulators that exacerbated the situation.

(edit to fix tags)

[N7RJD]

Yup, right direction, as follows: June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,� Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.�

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... KluP7yIwJY (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY)

Is that the same Steve Ballmer who said that no engineer was worth over $50K a few years ago?

Microsoft has always been about say something stupid and play catch up later. Of course catch up has meant modifying existing software more than engineering their own but it seems to work for them.

I remember when Microsoft stated that the internet was a passing fad. Soon they were out using technology developed by others to put together a browser of their own. And remember that no home computer user would ever have use for a word processor.

I figure their next move is change the color of the blue screen to red and advertise the new version as having fixed the blue screen problem they have suffered for years.

[N3ATS]

Over inflated housing prices.
Bad loans to people who couldn't afford them.
Fractional reserve banking.

You had (at least in my area) houses that skyrocketed in price due to easy loans and very low interest rates. A 120K house suddenly skyrocketed to 160K in 6 months for no reason other than money was cheap. People were offering sellers 5-10% more than asking price just to get into a house before someone else jumped on it. In certain cases, houses here were on the market for mere hours.

The banks were giving out loans to people who couldn't afford to make the payments, interest only loans, balloon loans, etc. You make $12 an hour and want a $200K mortgage? Yep, you're approved!

Using a fractional reserve banking system, the banks relied on Peter to pay Paul. When the housing bubble popped and house prices dropped, the banks lost a lot of their assets that would have been used to cover the defaults of other loans. This en masse default caused a chain reaction.

[M0GLO]

Repeat after me: "Mortgage defaults did not cause the meltdown."

If you don't understand that, than you simply don't get what's going on with the economy.
+1, $1.2 Trillion in bad loans did not cause the banks to lose $63 Trillion dollars speculating.

[M0GLO]

Repeat after me: "Mortgage defaults did not cause the meltdown."

If you don't understand that, than you simply don't get what's going on with the economy.

Thats your opinion.
That's fact, not opinion Paul.
The total amount of bad loans is 1.9% of the total estimated losses.

It would appear that you don't understand the economy or this financial issue we are dealing with..

[N4VGB]

The liquidity crisis, and the meltdown that panicked Poulsen, were not caused by the increase in mortgage defaults.

Nor were most of the malaise in the economy.

Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand what did cause the liquidity crisis, or why the liquidity crisis turned into an economic meltdown.



The problem with the "liquidity crisis" is that it WAS NOT as widespread as it was originally believed. The great majority of my regional Fed system banks wish to return the funds that were forced upon them to the Fed and Geithner adamantly says "NO". My biggest question at this time is why the Obama administration is adamant about leaving Fed funds sitting in the hands of banks who did not need the funds and are still stating that they have no intention of using one penny of the funds!? The total funds forced upon our regional banks was $19.5 billion and the great majority of those funds would be returned to the Fed instantly, if Geithner would accept those returns. Instead he announces that BoA and some others now need billions more of taxpayer's dollars and leaves wasted Fed funds sitting in banks who don't want or need it!? :chin:

There is something very "rotten in Denmark" going on in the current situation. I can't "get a handle" on this situation and my friends in the banking industry are a little perplexed by it also. The only somewhat logical explanation that I've encountered for this situation is that our economic situation is actually known in D.C. to be headed for much worse times and these unused funds will be needed soon. :shock: That one is a bit spooky, to say the least! :shock:

The basic idea of insuring investments is foreign to me and completely illogical from the start. Even that old stalwart FDIC thing for banks is now a total joke to me. Good grief, how the devil can I have confidence in the FDIC when the U.S. government is broke!? :lol: This whole financial system "meltdown", "crisis" or whatever you want to call it appears to me as nothing more than the private sector emulating the U.S. government and it's multiple "Ponzi schemes". Let me correct that statement, it's obvious that this type scheme is also used by many governments in the world, not just the U.S. government, whether Todd wishes to acknowledge it or not. :mrgreen:

[M0GLO]

More ignorant BS from the master of such things.

The banks cried for the money, even tried to scare us by claiming the country itself would come to ruin of they did not get it, until they were told there might be strings such as pay and bonus caps at which point they were suddenly solvent and had no issue.

You see the problem with your take on it Dilly is that it has no basis in fact.
What they did is a matter of record and until the Republicans run things again and start rewriting the history books it is there for all to see.

[N4VGB]

More ignorant BS from the master of such things.

The banks cried for the money, even tried to scare us by claiming the country itself would come to ruin of they did not get it, until they were told there might be strings such as pay and bonus caps at which point they were suddenly solvent and had no issue.

You see the problem with your take on it Dilly is that it has no basis in fact.
What they did is a matter of record and until the Republicans run things again and start rewriting the history books it is there for all to see.

Well Todd, I can only say that in regards to the Southeast regional banks that were listed in the first TARP distribution that 2 of those which I do business with have from day one of this mess stated the same thing, "we don't need it, we don't want it and we aren't going to use it".

Now the biggest national bankers were indeed guilty of what you post BUT just as Osama found out about the WTC, the whole country really doesn't rotate around those big boys at all. Bringing down the WTC didn't cripple American financial and business interests as Osama believed. AIG's failure wouldn't have killed us either.

Breaches of fiduciary duty law are criminal matters in the U.S. Todd. When should I look for Obama/Holder to start the legal proceedings? Don't hold your breath for that one Todd. I seriously doubt that a Democratic Party President will be interested in wiping out his own party or it's financial backing. Just keeping them mesmerized with "Bush did it" or "Republicans did it" is all that is needed to keep them from looking at WHO ACTUALLY STOLE THE LOOT. All the silly "shell games" are just distraction from the obvious route to truth used in the old movie "The French Connection" of "follow the money".

[n2ize]

The collapse of the economy was 100% caused by blacks getting loans from Obama through the fannie and freddie affirmative action programs.

[M0GLO]

The collapse of the economy was 100% caused by blacks getting loans from Obama through the fannie and freddie affirmative action programs.
Don't forget the illegal immigrants who took out huge loans on their stoop labor wages and bought those mansions!

[n2ize]

The collapse of the economy was 100% caused by blacks getting loans from Obama through the fannie and freddie affirmative action programs.
Don't forget the illegal immigrants who took out huge loans on their stoop labor wages and bought those mansions!

Thanks for reminding me. I almost forget.. It's a liberal plot !! I'll bet Ayers is behind it all.

[M0GLO]

The collapse of the economy was 100% caused by blacks getting loans from Obama through the fannie and freddie affirmative action programs.
Don't forget the illegal immigrants who took out huge loans on their stoop labor wages and bought those mansions!

Thanks for reminding me. I almost forget.. It's a liberal plot !! I'll bet Ayers is behind it all.
Damn straight! Him and Osama planned it all in at UIC in 60's.
"Get them Americans to take out home loans they can't afford and it'll destroy the economy" Osama said, "I'll work on that and you get the banks to securitize them and leverage them at 100 to 1 and this thing will work like a charm!" Ayers crowed with an evil glint in his eye that only a true terrorist would have.

Yeah, that's how it happened. Yeah.

[kd6nig]

The collapse of the economy was 100% caused by blacks getting loans from Obama through the fannie and freddie affirmative action programs.
Don't forget the illegal immigrants who took out huge loans on their stoop labor wages and bought those mansions!

Thanks for reminding me. I almost forget.. It's a liberal plot !! I'll bet Ayers is behind it all.

How dare you even start to think about denying the American dream to minorities and illegals!

(just in case its not implied, thats dripping with such sarcasm I'm calling the janitor in with a mop as we speak....)

[N7YA]

Damn!! Im so envious of those blacks with their clothes and their music, its just so coooooooooool.... :evil: ...WHY COULDNT I HAVE BEEN BORN BLACK!! :cry: :cry: :cry:

[KB1QBZ]

10 big banks get OK to repay $68B in bailout money

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_ ... and_losers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tarp_winners_and_losers)

The neocons who have been claiming that President Obama is trying to nationalize the banking industry are strangely silent on this.

I wonder why?

[M0GLO]

Are they paying usurious interest on the loans as well, just like they make us pay?
Or did they get it interest free?

I guess they were never really in any danger to start with regardless of the doom they sold us last year. Isn't it just amazing how the threat of salary and bonus caps can correct the most dire of financial situations? :lol:

[N4VGB]

10 big banks get OK to repay $68B in bailout money

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_ ... and_losers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tarp_winners_and_losers)

The neocons who have been claiming that President Obama is trying to nationalize the banking industry are strangely silent on this.

I wonder why?



"Silent"??? Your own link has quotes from Republicans on the matter!? I presume you mean Republicans when you say "neocons"? Or are you referring to the new chief neocon, Obama? You are aware of the correct definition of a neocon? Obama fits the definition perfectly.

Neither Obama or Geithner are happy about this news. Me thinks they just had to cave in to public scrutiny and opinion on this one. Maybe a little more public pressure will make them allow the smaller regional banks, like mine, return their TARP funds also, that's a whole lot more money than this article is talking about. :lol:

[ae6ip]

Since nobody seems to have listened to the This American Life program, here's the summary of the real crisis:

1) bonds consisting of repackaged debt became incredibly complex
2) bond rating agencies utterly failed to correctly rate bonds
3) bond buyers, never the less tried to hedge.
4) There was no visibility at all into the hedge market, so nobody knew that
5) the hedges were undercapitalized by a factor of over 50.

It wasn't even the burst of the housing bubble that triggered the run on the hedges that froze the credit market; it was the failure of a bond packager to find funding for a package of bonds they needed to unload.

That was the domino that started the collapse th turned a 50 million dollar short fall at Bear Stearns into the 60 trillion dollar collapse of the hedge market, and the drying up of credit markets.

The collapse of the mortgage market that y'all keep fixating on was a consequence of the drying up of credit markets, not the cause.

Oh, and by the way, the Bush administration? It overruled one of its own regulators who wanted to regulate the hedge market to at least bring transparency and reasonable capitalization rules to it. It's why they concentrate on Freddie and Fannie: to hide their dirty laundry under a circus for the peanut gallery.

We had a hedge fund market collapse because it was under capitalized and had no transparency.
The collapse was triggered by a failure of bond rating agencies to correctly rate the risk of very complicated bond packages. A failure that was exacerbated by the failure of regulators of the bond rating agencies to regulate that business.

That failure triggered a drying up of credit, and that failure of credit is what panicked Paulson. This is something that had never happened before; not even in the run up to the '29 stock market collapse.

The credit failure panicked the banks, unfortunately, at the same time that the housing bubble finally burst.

Had Paulson put the money that went into TARP into buying out consumer debt, every individual in America would have become, at least momentarily, debt free, even on all their mortgages, and none of the banks would have had problems with liquidity, and the credit market would have still collapsed because of the hedge undercapitalization.

Instead, he barely retarded the collapse by a few days.

Ironically, this is all independent of the economic collapse that was going on already anyway: American manufacturers in the automobile industry had finally failed so badly that they stood on the edge of ruin.

There are really three distinct threads going on in this failure, from worst to least:

1) The collapse of the hedge funds and the impact on global credit markets
2) The collapse of a large manufacturing industry in the US, and its consequences on the US as a consumer market
3) The housing bubble.

But the housing bubble is the easiest to understand, and the necons have a ready scapegoat in Barney Frank's stupid mistake, so that's what the peanut gallery yammers on about.

[KB1QBZ]

Neither Obama or Geithner are happy about this news.

So are you claiming to be a psychiatrist who has spent years studying the subjects, or are you claiming to have wired up the White House and Treasury with hidden microphones?

Your statement is one of the biggest loads of horse-patooie ever seen, and that's saying a lot given some of your other statements.

[N4VGB]

Neither Obama or Geithner are happy about this news.

So are you claiming to be a psychiatrist who has spent years studying the subjects, or are you claiming to have wired up the White House and Treasury with hidden microphones?

Your statement is one of the biggest loads of horse-patooie ever seen, and that's saying a lot given some of your other statements.

No. I'm basing my opinion on the well known FACT that Geithner/Obama have steadily refused to allow many institutions who wish to return the funds thay received from the Fed to do so. FACTS seem to completely escape you most times. :whistle:

There are a lot more institutions that want to return their received funds back to the Fed also. Public opinion is forcing Geithner/Obama to start allowing return of these funds to the Fed. It is difficult for any but the highest level of rubes, like yourself, to justify forcing institutions to keep funds they neither wanted or needed while proclaiming that other institutions, like BoA & Citi, need more Fed funds from the taxpayers. :chin:

Common sense and very basic accounting skills are all that are needed to see this situation clearly. Oops, I forgot, you're a Democrat. :wall

[KB1QBZ]

No. I'm basing my opinion on the well known FACT that Geithner/Obama have steadily refused to allow many institutions who wish to return the funds thay received from the Fed to do so.

There are a lot more institutions that want to return their received funds back to the Fed also.

And having demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of mortgage financing, you're now claiming to be an expert in bank finances and know better than the Federal Reserve or anybody else whether or not the other banks are in a position to return the funds.

Yeah. Right. Sure.

:chin: :whistle: :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[M0GLO]

Since nobody seems to have listened to the This American Life program, here's the summary of the real crisis:

1) bonds consisting of repackaged debt became incredibly complex
2) bond rating agencies utterly failed to correctly rate bonds
3) bond buyers, never the less tried to hedge.
4) There was no visibility at all into the hedge market, so nobody knew that
5) the hedges were undercapitalized by a factor of over 50.

It wasn't even the burst of the housing bubble that triggered the run on the hedges that froze the credit market; it was the failure of a bond packager to find funding for a package of bonds they needed to unload.

That was the domino that started the collapse th turned a 50 million dollar short fall at Bear Stearns into the 60 trillion dollar collapse of the hedge market, and the drying up of credit markets.

The collapse of the mortgage market that y'all keep fixating on was a consequence of the drying up of credit markets, not the cause.

Oh, and by the way, the Bush administration? It overruled one of its own regulators who wanted to regulate the hedge market to at least bring transparency and reasonable capitalization rules to it. It's why they concentrate on Freddie and Fannie: to hide their dirty laundry under a circus for the peanut gallery.

We had a hedge fund market collapse because it was under capitalized and had no transparency.
The collapse was triggered by a failure of bond rating agencies to correctly rate the risk of very complicated bond packages. A failure that was exacerbated by the failure of regulators of the bond rating agencies to regulate that business.

That failure triggered a drying up of credit, and that failure of credit is what panicked Paulson. This is something that had never happened before; not even in the run up to the '29 stock market collapse.

The credit failure panicked the banks, unfortunately, at the same time that the housing bubble finally burst.

Had Paulson put the money that went into TARP into buying out consumer debt, every individual in America would have become, at least momentarily, debt free, even on all their mortgages, and none of the banks would have had problems with liquidity, and the credit market would have still collapsed because of the hedge undercapitalization.

Instead, he barely retarded the collapse by a few days.

Ironically, this is all independent of the economic collapse that was going on already anyway: American manufacturers in the automobile industry had finally failed so badly that they stood on the edge of ruin.

There are really three distinct threads going on in this failure, from worst to least:

1) The collapse of the hedge funds and the impact on global credit markets
2) The collapse of a large manufacturing industry in the US, and its consequences on the US as a consumer market
3) The housing bubble.

But the housing bubble is the easiest to understand, and the necons have a ready scapegoat in Barney Frank's stupid mistake, so that's what the peanut gallery yammers on about.

+63,000,000,000,000!

That was one of the most concise summaries of the problem I have seen to date, bravo Marty! Well done!

[N4VGB]

Had Paulson put the money that went into TARP into buying out consumer debt, every individual in America would have become, at least momentarily, debt free, even on all their mortgages, and none of the banks would have had problems with liquidity, and the credit market would have still collapsed because of the hedge undercapitalization.



Congratulations! We have a winner! The single largest lie ever told in the world! But then Dems are very good at this type thing.

Please answer this question for me Marty. What do you believe the total mortgage debt in the U.S. actually is at this time Marty? And what do you believe the total of what is normally called "consumer debt" (which DOES NOT normally include mortgage debt) at this time Marty? Each of those categories of debt in the U.S. make the total of TARP pale in comparison. Just exactly how do you take $787 billion in funds and pay a debt load that is many times that amount?

Of course Marty could have just had a brain fart, he does that. :whistle

[M0GLO]

Hey Dilmus, how many people do you think actually see your posts? :lol:

Hey Dilmus, how many people do you think actually see your posts? :lol:
What posts?

[N7YA]

I admit, i dont have Dilly blanked from my screen because he is entertaining to me. I cant recall one argument with the guy. :lol:

[ae6ip]

Hey Dilmus, how many people do you think actually see your posts? :lol:
What posts?

Dilmus still posts?

[N1LAF]

Do(1+g) = rs - g

[N4VGB]

Hey Dilmus, how many people do you think actually see your posts? :lol:
What posts?

Dilmus still posts?

The great thing is, who cares whether wimps see my posts or not! :lol: