Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Makes sense to me, depending on how they do it. If FDIC acts as an insurance company, which it basically does, and banks have become more risky as of late, which they have, why wouldn't the FDIC in effect, raise their premiums?
It happens to us as consumers all the time.
the problem is that some banks can't afford a hypothetical fee in this case and might cuase more failures.
the fdic taking out a loan will have to be paid by future assessment fees, so really this will be a case of healthly banks indirectly lending crappy banks money to keep the crappy banks from going under and all guaranteed by the gov. Not the best situation imo, but not the worst either.
Again, banks and insurance companies do this to us as consumers every day. When a consumer's credit score goes down, banks and other risk-adverse companies, charge us higher interest rates, or higher fees, or close accounts or lower credit limits. This is done regardless of whether a consumer can afford it or not.
So again, why do we care if these banks get treated the same?
If banks dont lend, they are considered discriminatory. Legislation is passed, banks are forced to lend to unqualified individuals.
Suddenly everyone has loans, but not all of them are getting paid. Banks have now lost money and fail. Legislators and fools scream of the failures of the free market (Which was never free to begin with).
FDIC runs out of money trying to insure depositors money and ensure the confidence in the system.
Posed solutions include getting money from the Treasury but that just adds to the "free money" printing thats going on. We've printed enough already to cause problems, real fuckin big problems. Other solutions include taxing the entities on the brink of failure. Nothing like raising taxes on the unemployed eh?
Hope and Change, Hope and Change. Sadly you dont see a problem with it, but then again I'm not entirely suprised that some fail to see just how badly we're getting fucked by the just left white Bush and the newly elected black Bush.
I really don't like to throw insults, but your post is idiotic. If you want to really why out what happened in the housing market, go here. It's long and has lots of words, so I'm sure you won't read it, but maybe someone on the board will and thus this post is worth it. Humans are notoriously bad at weighing long-term risk vs short-term profit. Hence, the situation we're in.
Also
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks ? not Fannie and Freddie ? dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
Just because I know you won't read the longer, more complicated report.