Fox business GOP debate

[Jhhnn]

So there was securitization in 1893?

That somebody owns a loan is not crushing the middle class. That we have "free markets" when nobody else plays by those rules internationally is what is crushing the middle class.

Germany has securitization too, but they are doing much better for the middle class.

There was securitization before that-

In September 1873, Jay Cooke & Company, a major component of the United States banking establishment, found itself unable to market several million dollars in Northern Pacific Railway bonds. Cooke's firm, like many others, had invested heavily in the railroads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

So who actually benefits from our "free markets"- the common man or the financial elite?

Rentiership & debt are, in truth, holding down middle class assets. No, you don't get a raise, but you do get a bigger line of credit so that high overhead can eat you alive whenever they pull the rug out from under us.

https://simontegg.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/new-zealand-debt-deleveraging/

 

[LegendKiller]

There was securitization before that-



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

So who actually benefits from our "free markets"- the common man or the financial elite?

Rentiership & debt are, in truth, holding down middle class assets. No, you don't get a raise, but you do get a bigger line of credit so that high overhead can eat you alive whenever they pull the rug out from under us.

https://simontegg.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/new-zealand-debt-deleveraging/

How were railway bonds securitization bonds? What specific hard assets were securitized in what SPV? Upon bankruptcy of the railroad, what assets were protected from bankruptcy proceedings of the corporate sponsor vs the securitization?

So you provide a debt/gdp graph to show leverage, but fail to acknowledge that leverage is what is needed in order to maintain a certain standard of living that cannot be obtained through current cashflow. You look for the cause of needed leverage, look at wages. Why are wages suppressed? Because we outsource jobs hand over fist and import H1Bs while allowing tens of millions of scabs in for the corporations.

Had we taken an America First attitude, like Germany does, at every step of the way, this wouldn't be the case.

Germany has securitization and they are doing much better with equality. In fact, most European countries have it also, and still do better.

You're barking up the wrong tree buckwheat.

 

[Jhhnn]

How were railway bonds securitization bonds? What specific hard assets were securitized in what SPV? Upon bankruptcy of the railroad, what assets were protected from bankruptcy proceedings of the corporate sponsor vs the securitization?

It doesn't really matter other than you finding an opportunity to obfuscate w/ technical jargon.

So you provide a debt/gdp graph to show leverage, but fail to acknowledge that leverage is what is needed in order to maintain a certain standard of living that cannot be obtained through current cashflow. You look for the cause of needed leverage, look at wages. Why are wages suppressed? Because we outsource jobs hand over fist and import H1Bs while allowing tens of millions of scabs in for the corporations.

Had we taken an America First attitude, like Germany does, at every step of the way, this wouldn't be the case.

Germany has securitization and they are doing much better with equality. In fact, most European countries have it also, and still do better.

You're barking up the wrong tree buckwheat.

So you're saying we need less "free market"? Will the Donald really try to deliver that, other than by turning ICE into the Gestapo?

 

[LegendKiller]

It doesn't really matter other than you finding an opportunity to obfuscate w/ technical jargon.



So you're saying we need less "free market"? Will the Donald really try to deliver that, other than by turning ICE into the Gestapo?

Has nothing to do with obfuscation. It has everything to do with you not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

If you're going to blame securitization for something, at least know should know what it is.

Dumbass.

I am absolutely saying we need less "free market" and more "rational market".

It's like the drive to get rid of the Ex/Im bank. Every developed country has one. Getting rid of ours would fuck our companies over. Why do it? Because some want it gone to hurt our businesses.

 

[Jhhnn]

Has nothing to do with obfuscation. It has everything to do with you not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

If you're going to blame securitization for something, at least know should know what it is.

Dumbass.

I am absolutely saying we need less "free market" and more "rational market".

It's like the drive to get rid of the Ex/Im bank. Every developed country has one. Getting rid of ours would fuck our companies over. Why do it? Because some want it gone to hurt our businesses.

I merely pointed out the different headsets involved in securitization & in lending one's own money. That has never been more evident than in the run-up to the crash of 2008. Collusion between securitizers & ratings agencies was obvious. At no point did lenders refuse to lower their standards further nor did the ratings agencies refuse to go along with it. They were selling ticking bombs in pretty wrapping paper, even knowingly using those instruments as collateral in the repo market. When investors figured that out, they fled to liquidity sending the whole mess down the porcelain bowl.

It's not an attack on securitization per se at all. As we've seen, any and all of the instruments of finance will be used & abused if proper frameworks & oversight are not employed. The financial sector is incapable of Bush era Greenspan style "self regulation". It's against their very nature.

What do Repubs want? They want it back & they want it to be even more wide open.

 

[LegendKiller]

I merely pointed out the different headsets involved in securitization & in lending one's own money. That has never been more evident than in the run-up to the crash of 2008. Collusion between securitizers & ratings agencies was obvious. At no point did lenders refuse to lower their standards further nor did the ratings agencies refuse to go along with it. They were selling ticking bombs in pretty wrapping paper, even knowingly using those instruments as collateral in the repo market. When investors figured that out, they fled to liquidity sending the whole mess down the porcelain bowl.

It's not an attack on securitization per se at all. As we've seen, any and all of the instruments of finance will be used & abused if proper frameworks & oversight are not employed. The financial sector is incapable of Bush era Greenspan style "self regulation". It's against their very nature.

What do Repubs want? They want it back & they want it to be even more wide open.

This is the problem, you again apply a broad brush without understanding the implications.

Rail bonds were held by wealthy, and pensions, as a primary holding like any other corporate bond, whether high yield or investment grade. You are blaming Securitization for something it wasn't even involved in.

That only rbms blew up is a testament to the fact that overall abs, including most CMBS and Clos were structured well and rated appropriately. The difference with rbms was in the assumptions around home price appreciation (hpa) being poorly understood (they couldn't go down), loss estimates on old products being offered to new borrowers (no/low doc and option arms used to be specialty products for appropriate borrowers but nobody shifted loss expectations appropriately when they went down credit) and correlation, as well as near 100% leverage through selling down everything, including the equity. Hence the new risk retention rules requiring some skin in the game.

The crisis was not Securitizations fault, it was a combination of factors that included it.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is the problem, you again apply a broad brush without understanding the implications.

Rail bonds were held by wealthy, and pensions, as a primary holding like any other corporate bond, whether high yield or investment grade. You are blaming Securitization for something it wasn't even involved in.

That only rbms blew up is a testament to the fact that overall abs, including most CMBS and Clos were structured well and rated appropriately. The difference with rbms was in the assumptions around home price appreciation (hpa) being poorly understood (they couldn't go down), loss estimates on old products being offered to new borrowers (no/low doc and option arms used to be specialty products for appropriate borrowers but nobody shifted loss expectations appropriately when they went down credit) and correlation, as well as near 100% leverage through selling down everything, including the equity. Hence the new risk retention rules requiring some skin in the game.

The crisis was not Securitizations fault, it was a combination of factors that included it.

Making excuses. Home prices have declined previously, well within memory of anybody over the age of 40. They fell precipitously in many areas as part of the S&L crisis. If you think that highly successful veterans of decades of working in finance didn't know that, you're delusional. They just kept pushing the limits to make more money, knowingly lending to people who couldn't pay & representing that as good debt in a hot market where too much money was chasing too few returns. The smartest among them paid for protection in the synthetic derivatives market above and beyond any risk they had.

They knew it would all fall down, although few realized just how bad the collateral damage would be. They're like cowboys who'll ride a horse to death.

Like the stock market, housing prices thrive on illusions & are therefore subject to the attentions of hucksters & pitch men.

In all of this, you're deliberately avoiding statements & actions by both sides of the political divide as to what they want. Dems say we need to go further wrt oversight & regulation, Repubs try to roll it all back to the good o' days of the Bush years & even further if possible.

They suck voters in with emotional bullshit- you over immigration, others over abortion, taxes, guns, smaller gubmint & an ongoing 3 ring circus of contrived scandal.

Repubs serve the predatory financial elite almost exclusively. Once a person realizes that all other arguments fall away as peripheral no matter how badly they want to convince us otherwise.

 

[TheSlamma]

Both parties undid the regulations that would have prevented 2008.

This crap about those regulations not doing enough or having loopholes.. okay then close the loophole. Instead they ALL just wiped the shit out and here we are 15 years later and nothing to replace it.


Edit, had to get rid of my last statement, they all had smiles on their face after looking at the Nov 12th 1999 photos

 

[Jhhnn]

Both parties undid the regulations that would have prevented 2008.

This crap about those regulations not doing enough or having loopholes.. okay then close the loophole. Instead they ALL just wiped the shit out and here we are 15 years later and nothing to replace it.


Edit, had to get rid of my last statement, they all had smiles on their face after looking at the Nov 12th 1999 photos

It was Repubs who pushed relentlessly for those changes and who seek to reverse the safeguards established since 2008. It was Repubs who held Congress & the White House during the greatest top down class warfare looting spree in the history of finance.