• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks and Spitzer charges are intimately linked

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
If Spitzer hadn't been shuffling money around and paying off hookers with so much money that the general public was pissed they couldn't have laid a hand on him.

As far as blaming the victim-those that took out sub prime ARM's I have not a moment's sympathy for them, they failed grade school level math and assuredly are culpable in what happened.

The actions the Fed is taking now is going to avert another depression, it's gonna be a bitter pill, but we earned it, and BTW, who the hell didn't see this coming?
That's why the banks should not be given a free pass. they too need to be punished. I see a double standard when you don't care for the regular folks who "failed at math" but have no problem helping the Feds cause "it can't be help."
Mr. Market is taking care of the lending institutions (and their shareholders), trust me...
How many have gone under? That's right...none. And they won't either because they're "too big to fail."
And how many at the top have lost their jobs and/or wealth/savings? Virtually none except for the symbolic CEO's. And they too left with kings ransoms in golden parachutes.

Time to put the regulators and their bosses in jail. Enough of this administration and it's cronies using taxpayer money as their personal ATM's.
Agreed. At the very least, they should bring some form of Glass-Steagall back that will be more powerful than before.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're only part right, Dari. Not all investments are secured- not the ones in people's 401K or pension accounts, for example. And many businesses, honest going concerns, depend on short term lines of credit to finance their day to day operations. Allowing the investment banks to go belly-up would lead to a really huge contraction of credit and the economy.

I'll agree, however, that much of the current situation has arisen because of poor regulation of and within the industry, which will need to be addressed down the road. Overplaying that now will just lead to even less stability, more chaos, greater losses for everybody, not just the banks.
So what kind of regulation are you suggesting? Shall we cut down 2 trees for every loan instead of just 1 like we do now? Have you ever worked in the industry to see how it is regulated? Have you ever even bought a house?

And yes, in our "trickle-down" economy, new money enters it by being lent out. And bad enough it's a trickle, right now that trickle is dammed. That (and not the tinfoil beanie nonsense in the OP) is why the Fed loans and rate cuts are hurting the economy now more than they're helping, because that money is bailing out those on the top while only inflicting inflation on those at the bottom who no longer have access to credit.

If you have a solution, I'm interested in hearing it. If you're just going to spout more useful idiot rhetoric, using as many words as possible while saying as little as possible as you usually do, then kindly don't pretend you have a clue, eh.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: nergee
Nationalization of all this crap is right outside the front door....in fact it is happening right
now...The big money grubbers think they are untouchable, and unfortunately they are...
sigh... nationalization is what they want. Who else can get they get to buy their turkey for top-dollar?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Agreed. At the very least, they should bring some form of Glass-Steagall back that will be more powerful than before.
I've noticed that throughout this thread you keep talking about Glass-Steagall without mentioning the bill that repealed it, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I'm getting a bit foggy here with all the partisan hackery being thrown around in the OP... which President was that who signed the GLBA?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Agreed. At the very least, they should bring some form of Glass-Steagall back that will be more powerful than before.
I've noticed that throughout this thread you keep talking about Glass-Steagall without mentioning the bill that repealed it, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I'm getting a bit foggy here with all the partisan hackery being thrown around in the OP... which President was that who signed the GLBA?
What difference does it make which President signed it into law? Gramm-Leach-Billey was written by bankers to regulate bankers. That makes it a complete joke in my book. It was hailed as a "modernization" of the banking system but it goes to show that it was modernizing the banking system by allowing the creation of new instruments. The regulatory part? Well, it wasn't too much of a concern. Have you read that bill?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Agreed. At the very least, they should bring some form of Glass-Steagall back that will be more powerful than before.
I've noticed that throughout this thread you keep talking about Glass-Steagall without mentioning the bill that repealed it, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I'm getting a bit foggy here with all the partisan hackery being thrown around in the OP... which President was that who signed the GLBA?
What difference does it make which President signed it into law? Gramm-Leach-Billey was written by bankers to regulate bankers. That makes it a complete joke in my book. It was hailed as a "modernization" of the banking system but it goes to show that it was modernizing the banking system by allowing the creation of new instruments. The regulatory part? Well, it wasn't too much of a concern. Have you read that bill?
Of course. Studying it was required reading for my license, as well as my required continuing education. Government puts special emphasis on its regulation for financial privacy, namely opt-out, definitions for consumer vs. customer, etc.
I don't recall that it allowed for the creation of new financial instruments (because it didn't, although it did remove the separation of banks and financial services companies that Glass-Steagall had imposed, which would certainly be a valid argument against it if you used that), and I do know for a fact that ALL of the particular financial instruments blamed for the housing boom/bust already existed prior to the passage of GLBA.

Your argument for why it is flawed is what I find to be a joke. Who do you propose you have written it? Doctors? Engineers? Schoolteachers?
And no matter who wrote it, we do know which of our elected officials voted for it and signed it, now don't we? I'd say that makes a lot of difference because they could have chosen not to.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Agreed. At the very least, they should bring some form of Glass-Steagall back that will be more powerful than before.
I've noticed that throughout this thread you keep talking about Glass-Steagall without mentioning the bill that repealed it, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I'm getting a bit foggy here with all the partisan hackery being thrown around in the OP... which President was that who signed the GLBA?
What difference does it make which President signed it into law? Gramm-Leach-Billey was written by bankers to regulate bankers. That makes it a complete joke in my book. It was hailed as a "modernization" of the banking system but it goes to show that it was modernizing the banking system by allowing the creation of new instruments. The regulatory part? Well, it wasn't too much of a concern. Have you read that bill?
Of course. Studying it was required reading for my license, as well as my required continuing education. Government puts special emphasis on its regulation for financial privacy, namely opt-out, definitions for consumer vs. customer, etc.
I don't recall that it allowed for the creation of new financial instruments (because it didn't, although it did remove the separation of banks and financial services companies that Glass-Steagall had imposed, which would certainly be a valid argument against it if you used that), and I do know for a fact that ALL of the particular financial instruments blamed for the housing boom/bust already existed prior to the passage of GLBA.

Your argument for why it is flawed is what I find to be a joke. Who do you propose you have written it? Doctors? Engineers? Schoolteachers?
And no matter who wrote it, we do know which of our elected officials voted for it and signed it, now don't we? I'd say that makes a lot of difference because they could have chosen not to.
To meet any semblence of being fair and balanced, such an important law (we're dealing with the banking system here, mind you) should be writen by bankers, regulators, economists, and professors. You should want the input of ALL involved in the banking system. One glaring example of the stupidity of this law is its vagueness when it comes to capital requirements and punishment. The law also had a circular logic when it came to who owned whom in regards to investment and commercial banks.

I don't know what you do for a living, but your attitude towards the banking system and the people they lend money to is hypocritical. On the one hand, you want people to lie in the bed they made while on the other you want bankers to be protected from their own stupidity because they are too important.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,079
186
106
There are members here that are too (I wouldn't call them stupid) but... I think they just don't want this happening so they post a rosy picture.... I could see this happening... The writing on the walls were there long ago. I think lot's of people rang the alarm bells but now it's really too late. This is just the tip of the ice burg.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: Dari
I don't know what you do for a living, but your attitude towards the banking system and the people they lend money to is hypocritical. On the one hand, you want people to lie in the bed they made while on the other you want bankers to be protected from their own stupidity because they are too important.
I have never advocated such a thing here or otherwise. You made some out-of-the-blue accusation to this effect in another thread while I was in fact saying exactly the opposite.
What I am saying though is that internet armchair idiots who know nothing about what has happened and is happening shouldn't pretend to themselves that they do. You're not serving any interest but your egos.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: ericlp
There are members here that are too (I wouldn't call them stupid) but... I think they just don't want this happening so they post a rosy picture.... I could see this happening... The writing on the walls were there long ago. I think lot's of people rang the alarm bells but now it's really too late. This is just the tip of the ice burg.
Blah blah blah... my dog saw the writing on the wall before you did. I was ringing the "alarm bells" in the late 90s. It's been "too late" for about 6 years and we're already 2 years into it. No one is painting is a "rosy picture," it's just that people like you finally woke up just a year or so ago (if even that) and fancy your hindsight of the obvious makes you a prophet. It's like we've been in a train wreck, it's already happened, and a whole bunch of the other passengers start screaming hysterically that OMG we're all gonna crash! STFU already. Some of us are trying to aid the injured.

 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,942
126
Vic: Since you work in this industry what is your solution to fix it? Do you think when all this settles down it should be business as usual? Do you think that less regulation works? I'm not trying to attack you I just want to know.

I wanted to buy a home in 2005 and realized how retarded the whole situation was at that time and i am glad I didn't buy. I wouldn't consider myself a prophet but having my eyes and ears open helped me forget about a home for the time being.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
I don't know what you do for a living, but your attitude towards the banking system and the people they lend money to is hypocritical. On the one hand, you want people to lie in the bed they made while on the other you want bankers to be protected from their own stupidity because they are too important.
I have never advocated such a thing here or otherwise. You made some out-of-the-blue accusation to this effect in another thread while I was in fact saying exactly the opposite.
What I am saying though is that internet armchair idiots who know nothing about what has happened and is happening shouldn't pretend to themselves that they do. You're not serving any interest but your egos.
I am far from an internet armchair anything when it comes to money and banking. Seeing your hostility to people who lost their home during this mess (not that they deserved to keep it), I really want to know how you feel about those that started all these highly complex CDO, CDO^n, etc... Were you just as worried as many in the FED or did you see it as a financial invention that would lower prices for everyone since it spread risk so efficiently? Please, tell us your opinion on this.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
I don't know what you do for a living, but your attitude towards the banking system and the people they lend money to is hypocritical. On the one hand, you want people to lie in the bed they made while on the other you want bankers to be protected from their own stupidity because they are too important.
I have never advocated such a thing here or otherwise. You made some out-of-the-blue accusation to this effect in another thread while I was in fact saying exactly the opposite.
What I am saying though is that internet armchair idiots who know nothing about what has happened and is happening shouldn't pretend to themselves that they do. You're not serving any interest but your egos.
I am far from an internet armchair anything when it comes to money and banking. Seeing your hostility to people who lost their home during this mess (not that they deserved to keep it), I really want to know how you feel about those that started all these highly complex CDO, CDO^n, etc... Were you just as worried as many in the FED or did you see it as a financial invention that would lower prices for everyone since it spread risk so efficiently? Please, tell us your opinion on this.
Here's an idea if you want my respect in this discussion. Quit pretending that I am making arguments that I am not. First, you pretended that I wanted to see bankers protected from their stupidity, now you're pretending that I have hostility to people who've lost their homes. When neither time have I said or even conveyed anything remotely similar to that. Stop playing this stupid game, and maybe we'll talk. Until then, fuck off (and that's hostility towards you personally, just so your imagination doesn't run wild that it's towards someone or something else).
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Vic: Since you work in this industry what is your solution to fix it? Do you think when all this settles down it should be business as usual? Do you think that less regulation works? I'm not trying to attack you I just want to know.

I wanted to buy a home in 2005 and realized how retarded the whole situation was at that time and i am glad I didn't buy. I wouldn't consider myself a prophet but having my eyes and ears open helped me forget about a home for the time being.
- There is no one solution. So they can't be any such thing as "my" solution or "his" solution.
- Business as usual is not a phrase that exists in this industry. It is always changing and always has been. I suppose you could say that is its business as usual.
- I'm not going to argue less or more regulation. I will say that those who think there is an absence of regulation clearly can't see who controls the money supply and who just paid this bail-out.
- The situation was in fact retarded. I remember watching the dot-com bubble thinking WTF is wrong with people? and then I watched that exact same mentality hit the RE markets.
- And maybe you should have bought a home then, I can't say. I will say it won't do anyone any good if home prices come down while the cost of financing one goes up inversely.
- I have no hostility towards buyers, but the idea that they were innocent lambs is just silly. Maybe if you'd had seen the hordes and hordes of buyers shopping from one broker/lender to another, by the dozens each, not for the best terms as you would expect, but for the one who would actually approve them for houses they couldn't afford, then maybe some eyes and ears would open to the full story instead of just playing the blame game. Sure, they should never have been approved by anybody in most cases, I agree, but that wouldn't be the full story now would it.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Vic
- I have no hostility towards buyers, but the idea that they were innocent lambs is just silly. Maybe if you'd had seen the hordes and hordes of buyers shopping from one broker/lender to another, by the dozens each, not for the best terms as you would expect, but for the one who would actually approve them for houses they couldn't afford, then maybe some eyes and ears would open to the full story instead of just playing the blame game. Sure, they should never have been approved by anybody in most cases, I agree, but that wouldn't be the full story now would it.
I'll quote what I posted in another thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2156717

The text speaks for itself. I still have no sympathy for lenders. I would rather see the mortgages saved at the expense of the lenders.

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
In 2005 when we bought our house the deal with the builder was that we would use their mortgage company first in order to qualify for the discounts and free upgrades - which were pretty good.

The mortgage company tried every trick in the book to claim we did not qualify for a regular mortgage, including 'we can't find any credit report on your wife'. So I faxed / emailed them a couple of credit reports and fica score and they kept claiming they did not get the faxes or emails. So I sent them via certified mail and guess what, 'someone in their office mislaid the mail packet and they didn't have it anymore'.

Bear in mind both my wife & I had excellent credit with fica scores in the high 700's. And our combined income and the down payment easily qualified us for a regular mortgage.

They kept offering us ARM's and talked about no doc loans - just wanted us to sign a sub prime mortgage and threatening that we would lose our deposit if we didn't qualify for a loan or accept one of their offered products, which we reused to do. After almost 2 months of their shenanigans the broker stopped answering my calls or responding to any messages.

Eventually I had to go up the chain to a senior executive of the builder group and told her I had everything documented and was prepared to take them to court. She turned to to be a decent person who apologized and assigned us to one of their associated (third party) mortgage companies. Within a few days we had a 30 year fixed at one of the best rates available at that time. And the builder expedited the construction of our house.

Given my personal experience, while bankers may not be lurking in the bush, they were out there trying every which way to coerce people to take on instruments that benefited only one group of people - themselves.

Predatory lenders should get what they deserve, I have little sympathy for them.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
I don't know what you do for a living, but your attitude towards the banking system and the people they lend money to is hypocritical. On the one hand, you want people to lie in the bed they made while on the other you want bankers to be protected from their own stupidity because they are too important.
I have never advocated such a thing here or otherwise. You made some out-of-the-blue accusation to this effect in another thread while I was in fact saying exactly the opposite.
What I am saying though is that internet armchair idiots who know nothing about what has happened and is happening shouldn't pretend to themselves that they do. You're not serving any interest but your egos.
I am far from an internet armchair anything when it comes to money and banking. Seeing your hostility to people who lost their home during this mess (not that they deserved to keep it), I really want to know how you feel about those that started all these highly complex CDO, CDO^n, etc... Were you just as worried as many in the FED or did you see it as a financial invention that would lower prices for everyone since it spread risk so efficiently? Please, tell us your opinion on this.
Here's an idea if you want my respect in this discussion. Quit pretending that I am making arguments that I am not. First, you pretended that I wanted to see bankers protected from their stupidity, now you're pretending that I have hostility to people who've lost their homes. When neither time have I said or even conveyed anything remotely similar to that. Stop playing this stupid game, and maybe we'll talk. Until then, fuck off (and that's hostility towards you personally, just so your imagination doesn't run wild that it's towards someone or something else).
Originally posted by: Vic
"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash."
This is what you wrote in the Subprime Tent City thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2166013&enterthread=y

On second thought, I'm not interested in what you have to say considering your abrasive attitude.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash."
This is what you wrote in the Subprime Tent City thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2166013&enterthread=y

On second thought, I'm not interested in what you have to say considering your abrasive attitude.
Funny isn't it that no one interpreted that way except you, eh? It's a line from the movie "Airplane."

And why shouldn't I have an abrasive attitude when you're intentionally being an obtuse ass? What, am I supposed to be nice to you while you're doing that?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash."
This is what you wrote in the Subprime Tent City thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2166013&enterthread=y

On second thought, I'm not interested in what you have to say considering your abrasive attitude.
Funny isn't it that no one interpreted that way except you, eh? It's a line from the movie "Airplane."

And why shouldn't I have an abrasive attitude when you're intentionally being an obtuse ass? What, am I supposed to be nice to you while you're doing that?
Well, if you think I'm being an ass, wouldn't it be smarter to be the better man and not take it personally? If you think I mis-represented your opinion, you would be better served to tell me in a civil manner. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by being abrasive.

If that quote is from a movie and you posted it in a thread about homeless people that just lost their home, what's the casual observer to think?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Vic
- I have no hostility towards buyers, but the idea that they were innocent lambs is just silly. Maybe if you'd had seen the hordes and hordes of buyers shopping from one broker/lender to another, by the dozens each, not for the best terms as you would expect, but for the one who would actually approve them for houses they couldn't afford, then maybe some eyes and ears would open to the full story instead of just playing the blame game. Sure, they should never have been approved by anybody in most cases, I agree, but that wouldn't be the full story now would it.
I'll quote what I posted in another thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2156717

The text speaks for itself. I still have no sympathy for lenders. I would rather see the mortgages saved at the expense of the lenders.

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
In 2005 when we bought our house the deal with the builder was that we would use their mortgage company first in order to qualify for the discounts and free upgrades - which were pretty good.

The mortgage company tried every trick in the book to claim we did not qualify for a regular mortgage, including 'we can't find any credit report on your wife'. So I faxed / emailed them a couple of credit reports and fica score and they kept claiming they did not get the faxes or emails. So I sent them via certified mail and guess what, 'someone in their office mislaid the mail packet and they didn't have it anymore'.

Bear in mind both my wife & I had excellent credit with fica scores in the high 700's. And our combined income and the down payment easily qualified us for a regular mortgage.

They kept offering us ARM's and talked about no doc loans - just wanted us to sign a sub prime mortgage and threatening that we would lose our deposit if we didn't qualify for a loan or accept one of their offered products, which we reused to do. After almost 2 months of their shenanigans the broker stopped answering my calls or responding to any messages.

Eventually I had to go up the chain to a senior executive of the builder group and told her I had everything documented and was prepared to take them to court. She turned to to be a decent person who apologized and assigned us to one of their associated (third party) mortgage companies. Within a few days we had a 30 year fixed at one of the best rates available at that time. And the builder expedited the construction of our house.

Given my personal experience, while bankers may not be lurking in the bush, they were out there trying every which way to coerce people to take on instruments that benefited only one group of people - themselves.

Predatory lenders should get what they deserve, I have little sympathy for them.
Oh wow, gee, personal anecdote proves everything!

I would never advise anyone to go through the builder's mortgage company. That's a conflict of interest if ever there was one.

BTW, I already addressed this up above. Subprime has never paid as well "on the back" as does the prime programs. OTOH, subprime wasn't capped at $417k loan amount (edit: and for buyers going through less reputable brokers, subprime lenders didn't have such strict requirements for those brokers to get approved with them).
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,989
8,354
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash."
This is what you wrote in the Subprime Tent City thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2166013&enterthread=y

On second thought, I'm not interested in what you have to say considering your abrasive attitude.
Funny isn't it that no one interpreted that way except you, eh? It's a line from the movie "Airplane."

And why shouldn't I have an abrasive attitude when you're intentionally being an obtuse ass? What, am I supposed to be nice to you while you're doing that?
Well, if you think I'm being an ass, wouldn't it be smarter to be the better man and not take it personally? If you think I mis-represented your opinion, you would be better served to tell me in a civil manner. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by being abrasive.

If that quote is from a movie and you posted it in a thread about homeless people that just lost their home, what's the casual observer to think?
The fact that the quote was from a movie was actually commented on in that thread. The movie itself is one of the most famous comedies of all time (in fact, someone still posts a thread about in OT on average of about once a month even though the movie came out in 1980).
The context of the line in the movie BTW is purely deadpan straight ironic comedy -- here's this commentator on the nightly news saying this when clearly the passengers on the plane did nothing (besides buying their tickets) to deserve crashing.

I already tried the "civil manner" tack and politely clarified that Wall Street was crashing too, and you ignored that. At that point, it seemed quite obvious that you were just being a tool.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: nergee
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Aren't there more rate cuts scheduled for next week?

Bush is determined to bail-out as many of his corporate/wall-street cronies as possible before his departure.


those bastards would get bailed out no matter who was in office........
with the Fed spigot wide open, how does it feel to be part owner in all this crap?
Alternatives?
Let them fail like they should. At the very least, if these banks like to act in such rash manners, the government should nationalize them or re-instate the Glass-Steagall Act. But no, people have it in their mind that these banks are too big to fail. The truth is there is something call FDIC and >95% of depositors would get their money back from whatever bank that goes under. If FDIC is broke, then Bernanke can lend money to the FDIC instead of the clowns on Wall Street. The only suckers would be those that bought into these schemes (and those people are rich).
Reinstating Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the solution.

Look, you see the confusion and problems in the market right now, right? You see that muni's are almost dead, auction rate market is gone, several banks are tight on credit, and massive panic has come in waves in several sections of the debt markets. That's *with* the fed helping a lot.

Proposing to let the system collapse is sheer stupidity and comes from idiots who say things like "turn them into glass". Letting the system dismantle itself in orderly bits is the smart thing to do. It keeps certain sections open for business and allows the gradual fall for others, rather than utter chaos.

I know you libertopian types would love to see "rich bankers" go down, but this goes far beyond "rich bankers".
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash."
This is what you wrote in the Subprime Tent City thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2166013&enterthread=y

On second thought, I'm not interested in what you have to say considering your abrasive attitude.
Funny isn't it that no one interpreted that way except you, eh? It's a line from the movie "Airplane."

And why shouldn't I have an abrasive attitude when you're intentionally being an obtuse ass? What, am I supposed to be nice to you while you're doing that?
Well, if you think I'm being an ass, wouldn't it be smarter to be the better man and not take it personally? If you think I mis-represented your opinion, you would be better served to tell me in a civil manner. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by being abrasive.

If that quote is from a movie and you posted it in a thread about homeless people that just lost their home, what's the casual observer to think?
The fact that the quote was from a movie was actually commented on in that thread. The movie itself is one of the most famous comedies of all time (in fact, someone still posts a thread about in OT on average of about once a month even though the movie came out in 1980).
The context of the line in the movie BTW is purely deadpan straight ironic comedy -- here's this commentator on the nightly news saying this when clearly the passengers on the plane did nothing (besides buying their tickets) to deserve crashing.

I already tried the "civil manner" tack and politely clarified that Wall Street was crashing too, and you ignored that. At that point, it seemed quite obvious that you were just being a tool.
Being a tool for who? One thing that really irks me is double-standards. BTW, I still don't know what movie you're talking about.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: nergee
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Aren't there more rate cuts scheduled for next week?

Bush is determined to bail-out as many of his corporate/wall-street cronies as possible before his departure.


those bastards would get bailed out no matter who was in office........
with the Fed spigot wide open, how does it feel to be part owner in all this crap?
Alternatives?
Let them fail like they should. At the very least, if these banks like to act in such rash manners, the government should nationalize them or re-instate the Glass-Steagall Act. But no, people have it in their mind that these banks are too big to fail. The truth is there is something call FDIC and >95% of depositors would get their money back from whatever bank that goes under. If FDIC is broke, then Bernanke can lend money to the FDIC instead of the clowns on Wall Street. The only suckers would be those that bought into these schemes (and those people are rich).
Reinstating Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the solution.

Look, you see the confusion and problems in the market right now, right? You see that muni's are almost dead, auction rate market is gone, several banks are tight on credit, and massive panic has come in waves in several sections of the debt markets. That's *with* the fed helping a lot.

Proposing to let the system collapse is sheer stupidity and comes from idiots who say things like "turn them into glass". Letting the system dismantle itself in orderly bits is the smart thing to do. It keeps certain sections open for business and allows the gradual fall for others, rather than utter chaos.

I know you libertopian types would love to see "rich bankers" go down, but this goes far beyond "rich bankers".
I see what you're seeing. What irks me is that countless others saw this coming but there were only warnings. Why, you ask? Because, at the time, these new financial instruments were seeing as an efficient way for the market to spread risk. Everyone bought into the lie. Well, one of the downsides of spreading the risk is that the people that actually own your mortgage 1) only own a piece and are less inclined to help you out to fix it and 2) are on the other side of the globe so they could care less about your problems and 3) can easily sell your mortgage without thinking about the individual behind it.

Again, when times are good, people only give low-level warnings. But when everything comes crashing down like a house of cards, thats when the Fed goes and helps the banks, bailing them out like they're innocent bystanders.

BTW, one of the hidden secrets of this whole mess is how banks lend money to these boutiques (such as hedge funds) and turn around and sell them these risky instruments. Does that make any sense to anyone? To say that these banks didn't have it coming is stupid and they should pay.
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,878
0
76
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Vic
- I have no hostility towards buyers, but the idea that they were innocent lambs is just silly. Maybe if you'd had seen the hordes and hordes of buyers shopping from one broker/lender to another, by the dozens each, not for the best terms as you would expect, but for the one who would actually approve them for houses they couldn't afford, then maybe some eyes and ears would open to the full story instead of just playing the blame game. Sure, they should never have been approved by anybody in most cases, I agree, but that wouldn't be the full story now would it.
I'll quote what I posted in another thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2156717

The text speaks for itself. I still have no sympathy for lenders. I would rather see the mortgages saved at the expense of the lenders.

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
In 2005 when we bought our house the deal with the builder was that we would use their mortgage company first in order to qualify for the discounts and free upgrades - which were pretty good.

The mortgage company tried every trick in the book to claim we did not qualify for a regular mortgage, including 'we can't find any credit report on your wife'. So I faxed / emailed them a couple of credit reports and fica score and they kept claiming they did not get the faxes or emails. So I sent them via certified mail and guess what, 'someone in their office mislaid the mail packet and they didn't have it anymore'.

Bear in mind both my wife & I had excellent credit with fica scores in the high 700's. And our combined income and the down payment easily qualified us for a regular mortgage.

They kept offering us ARM's and talked about no doc loans - just wanted us to sign a sub prime mortgage and threatening that we would lose our deposit if we didn't qualify for a loan or accept one of their offered products, which we reused to do. After almost 2 months of their shenanigans the broker stopped answering my calls or responding to any messages.

Eventually I had to go up the chain to a senior executive of the builder group and told her I had everything documented and was prepared to take them to court. She turned to to be a decent person who apologized and assigned us to one of their associated (third party) mortgage companies. Within a few days we had a 30 year fixed at one of the best rates available at that time. And the builder expedited the construction of our house.

Given my personal experience, while bankers may not be lurking in the bush, they were out there trying every which way to coerce people to take on instruments that benefited only one group of people - themselves.

Predatory lenders should get what they deserve, I have little sympathy for them.
Great point. I have no sympathy for the greedy fools in the mortgage industry. Let them rot.

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: nergee
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Aren't there more rate cuts scheduled for next week?

Bush is determined to bail-out as many of his corporate/wall-street cronies as possible before his departure.


those bastards would get bailed out no matter who was in office........
with the Fed spigot wide open, how does it feel to be part owner in all this crap?
Alternatives?
Let them fail like they should. At the very least, if these banks like to act in such rash manners, the government should nationalize them or re-instate the Glass-Steagall Act. But no, people have it in their mind that these banks are too big to fail. The truth is there is something call FDIC and >95% of depositors would get their money back from whatever bank that goes under. If FDIC is broke, then Bernanke can lend money to the FDIC instead of the clowns on Wall Street. The only suckers would be those that bought into these schemes (and those people are rich).
Reinstating Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the solution.

Look, you see the confusion and problems in the market right now, right? You see that muni's are almost dead, auction rate market is gone, several banks are tight on credit, and massive panic has come in waves in several sections of the debt markets. That's *with* the fed helping a lot.

Proposing to let the system collapse is sheer stupidity and comes from idiots who say things like "turn them into glass". Letting the system dismantle itself in orderly bits is the smart thing to do. It keeps certain sections open for business and allows the gradual fall for others, rather than utter chaos.

I know you libertopian types would love to see "rich bankers" go down, but this goes far beyond "rich bankers".
I see what you're seeing. What irks me is that countless others saw this coming but there were only warnings. Why, you ask? Because, at the time, these new financial instruments were seeing as an efficient way for the market to spread risk. Everyone bought into the lie. Well, one of the downsides of spreading the risk is that the people that actually own your mortgage 1) only own a piece and are less inclined to help you out to fix it and 2) are on the other side of the globe so they could care less about your problems and 3) can easily sell your mortgage without thinking about the individual behind it.

Again, when times are good, people only give low-level warnings. But when everything comes crashing down like a house of cards, thats when the Fed goes and helps the banks, bailing them out like they're innocent bystanders.

BTW, one of the hidden secrets of this whole mess is how banks lend money to these boutiques (such as hedge funds) and turn around and sell them these risky instruments. Does that make any sense to anyone? To say that these banks didn't have it coming is stupid and they should pay.
There's nothing wrong with securitization. It's worked for 30+ years and has been still working fine outside of mortgages. It's nothing more than doing exactly what equities did to corporations. Don't blame the problem on the vehicle, blame it on the driver.

People have a lot of incentive to work out the debt, servicers have a legal duty to do so. Don't imagine for a second people aren't all over servicers. I work in the industry and watch servicers like a hawk.

Lending companies money and selling them products isn't the problem.




 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS