Why don't the libs get mad about banking?

[nehalem256]

But but but...the POTUS has the Final say and in this case he had an "R" after his last name.

Lol so you are saying bush didn't veto a bad bill because it was a rare thing to do?

Another example of bushs competence I guess.

Bush is but one man. Feel free to add one vote to the Republican vote total if it makes you feel better.

Doesn't change that a majority of Republicans voted against the bill.

Then again maybe it was just another case of Bush mind-controlling Democrats like when he got them to vote for the Iraq War

 

[ivwshane]

Bush is but one man. Feel free to add one vote to the Republican vote total if it makes you feel better.

Doesn't change that a majority of Republicans voted against the bill.

Then again maybe it was just another case of Bush mind-controlling Democrats like when he got them to vote for the Iraq War

All true but that doesn't discredit what Darwin said so...

 

[Thebobo]

Wow, conservatives sure are an angry bunch these days.

Lol you should listen to Rush (well actually you shouldn't) but the fact that it gets dark at night is now the presidents fault.

 

[LegendKiller]

It's always funny to ask conservatives a few questions, a couple of which may require some light reading, math, and deductive ability, and they run away like scared little bitches.

 

[klinc]

Why is it that all the liberal hacks that hate business never voice any concerns about big banking? When TARP happened, all the liberal dems (and repub pukes) kept there mouths shut over the bailout when it was clear that splitting the big banks up would have been the right thing to do. Now the big banks have an undue influence on politics and you blame big business. We had a chance to make it right, but Obama supported the bailout and thus you did, you went along for getting along. It is the number ONE reason we are still in this mess but you would rather blame the 1%'er while denying that your liberal congress people are part of that group. I am a conservative who did call and email my congress person insisting them to not support it by the way? Now, with QE1, 2 , and 3, how do you, with good conscience support your president. Banks make no risk loans to the government instead of dealing with the public now.

Why would splitting banks up be the right thing to do looking at it economy wise?

 

[ccbadd]

Why would splitting banks up be the right thing to do looking at it economy wise?

I think having a greater number of banks, preferably state chartered, would reduce the risk. No to mention, it would have allowed the people who gamed the system to be held accountable when the large banks are shutdown and the assets sold for a fair value. What we did (Bush wanted and the moron McCain voted for it) instead was backstop the losses at public expense. Then we created an environment to allowed back to lend almost exclusively to the government for no risk instead of to business. This would have still hit the economy hard, but established a floor quickly and allowed a much quicker recovery. I don't think we actually ever recovered.

QE is a tax by the way, just most people don't understand it.

 

[ccbadd]

Thats not even the biggest issue.

The biggest issue is they have been and continue to get away with blatantly violating black letter law.

Neither Republican nor Democrat administrations have brought any serious criminal charges against the assholes or even claw back the ill-gotten gains.

This is NOT a republican/democrat or liberal/conservative issue, the banksters have bought and paid for both sides of the aisle but since you threw liberals under the bus where can I see where YOUR side has demanded prosecution? Where has YOUR side demanded that the rule of law apply to all of us equally specifically regarding the banksters? This should be a very non-partisan issue as I would think that everyone believes that everyone should have to follow the same set of laws. Unfortunately some people simply can't help turning everything into a partisan issue.

I guess I really do have to agree with you. I would love to see people prosecuted from the banks down to the brokers. I tend to blame liberals as they are the one in power right now. FYI, I still think the liberals are nuts and generally don't see why anyone would continue to work hard when laziness gets the same return.

 

[Darwin333]

You do realize that Congress(both houses controlled by Democrats) passes laws and the President signs them into law right?

And you do realize that a minority of Republicans and majority of Democrats voted for TARP right?

Yes I do but again it was the Bush Administration that pushed the bill and then signed it into law. To blame the Dems (or even singularly blaming the Reps) is flat out wrong and partisan bullshit.

 

[Darwin333]

And?

The bill was opposed by a majority of Republicans.

Not in the Senate it wasn't and barely a majority in the house. In all, 91 house Republicans voted yes versus 108 that voted no. You can say or claim whatever you choose but that is most definitely NOT any sort of solid opposition. Even if we discount all of the other stuff it still isn't nearly enough to imply what you are attempting to.

The bill was supported by a majority of Democrats.

I know liberals get a hard-on every time they can blame Bush for anything. But the fact speak for themselves.

Nope, this was definitely a bipartisan bill. Both Dems and Reps are to blame for it regardless of how you want to spin it. I do find it rather funny that you completely discount the fact that the Bush admin was telling congress to pass the bill or biblical Armageddon would ensue. For fucks sake, it was called the "Paulson plan" at the time and was signed into law by Bush within hours of its passage.

 

[Darwin333]

I guess I really do have to agree with you. I would love to see people prosecuted from the banks down to the brokers. I tend to blame liberals as they are the one in power right now. FYI, I still think the liberals are nuts and generally don't see why anyone would continue to work hard when laziness gets the same return.

I have found that trying to play the blame game accomplishes absolutely nothing. Instead of doing that why not find issues that you can find common ground on, such as this one, and work to actually accomplish something?

 

[ccbadd]

I have found that trying to play the blame game accomplishes absolutely nothing. Instead of doing that why not find issues that you can find common ground on, such as this one, and work to actually accomplish something?

I agree with you in principle, but some things are so diametrically apposed that there just is no common ground. I do think that on the banking issues we could probably have found common ground. I do think that politics today does lend itself to divisiveness by default. I actually blame this on the president as it is his job to lead and I have heard him say he wants to work across the isle, but I wish someone would show me where he has actually done it, honestly. This takes us to my current dismay with liberal. It seems to me, that they defend the current administration regardless of what it is truly doing. Can anyone show me the transparency that was promised? Like I said before, I called my congress people, emailed them, and voiced complete disgust with TARP as it was passed. To be honest, I asked them if anyone is going to be bailed out, bail out the people (mortgage holders) rather than banks. Same money, maybe a little more, but not the people that abused the system.

 

[LegendKiller]

I agree with you in principle, but some things are so diametrically apposed that there just is no common ground. I do think that on the banking issues we could probably have found common ground. I do think that politics today does lend itself to divisiveness by default. I actually blame this on the president as it is his job to lead and I have heard him say he wants to work across the isle, but I wish someone would show me where he has actually done it, honestly. This takes us to my current dismay with liberal. It seems to me, that they defend the current administration regardless of what it is truly doing. Can anyone show me the transparency that was promised? Like I said before, I called my congress people, emailed them, and voiced complete disgust with TARP as it was passed. To be honest, I asked them if anyone is going to be bailed out, bail out the people (mortgage holders) rather than banks. Same money, maybe a little more, but not the people that abused the system.

Are you too chickenshit to answer some tough questions?

 

[LegendKiller]

I think having a greater number of banks, preferably state chartered, would reduce the risk. No to mention, it would have allowed the people who gamed the system to be held accountable when the large banks are shutdown and the assets sold for a fair value. What we did (Bush wanted and the moron McCain voted for it) instead was backstop the losses at public expense. Then we created an environment to allowed back to lend almost exclusively to the government for no risk instead of to business. This would have still hit the economy hard, but established a floor quickly and allowed a much quicker recovery. I don't think we actually ever recovered.

QE is a tax by the way, just most people don't understand it.

If QE was a tax, then who gets the revenue from the tax?

Do you consider ALL inflation a tax? What about inflation due to exogenous circumstances that are wholly unrelated to monetary expansion?

Do you think this "tax" has any benefits at all? For example, rather than having inflation and deflation which adds significant economic uncertainty and increases borrowing rates and requires excess cash to be held, capital to be retained, and adds significant frictions to economic activity, you do not think a consistent and marginal amount of inflation is beneficial?

Does the public not benefit from the bank's lending? How much in tax revenue did the public get from those activities over the last 100 years?

 

[ccbadd]

If QE was a tax, then who gets the revenue from the tax?

Do you consider ALL inflation a tax? What about inflation due to exogenous circumstances that are wholly unrelated to monetary expansion?

Do you think this "tax" has any benefits at all? For example, rather than having inflation and deflation which adds significant economic uncertainty and increases borrowing rates and requires excess cash to be held, capital to be retained, and adds significant frictions to economic activity, you do not think a consistent and marginal amount of inflation is beneficial?

Does the public not benefit from the bank's lending? How much in tax revenue did the public get from those activities over the last 100 years?

All inflation a tax, no, only government created inflation (QE). If your dollar (paycheck) is worth X and the government doubles the amount of currency in circulation, it is now worth X/2 (not progressive by the way and hurts the poor the most). We know that it is not that simple as you have debt that also go cut in half, but at the expense of ALL your future income. As for the your example, how does QE not lead to the same outcome of uncertainty? The only reason we have not seen it yet is that our dollar is held as the world reserve currency. When, not if, that changes, we are going to see the biggest bubble break in history. I think that the only reason WE have not seen inflation is that the government has redefined inflation. Why does anyone think removing sections of the economy from inflation calculations actually changes the reality? Gas does cost more, so does food, and housing.

 

[ccbadd]

Are you too chickenshit to answer some tough questions?

Like what? Ask one!

 

[LegendKiller]

All inflation a tax, no, only government created inflation (QE). If your dollar (paycheck) is worth X and the government doubles the amount of currency in circulation, it is now worth X/2 (not progressive by the way and hurts the poor the most). We know that it is not that simple as you have debt that also go cut in half, but at the expense of ALL your future income. As for the your example, how does QE not lead to the same outcome of uncertainty? The only reason we have not seen it yet is that our dollar is held as the world reserve currency. When, not if, that changes, we are going to see the biggest bubble break in history. I think that the only reason WE have not seen inflation is that the government has redefined inflation. Why does anyone think removing sections of the economy from inflation calculations actually changes the reality? Gas does cost more, so does food, and housing.

this is where people like you get it wrong, massively. Long-term wages have kept up with long-term inflation. Furthermore, the changes in currency only matter if velocity picks up. As you can see, there has been QE but almost no inflation. Why? Because almost all of QE has been offset by credit and asset destruction (deflation) and the lack of credit worthy borrowers and risk-taking lenders. The result is large amounts of reserves and money sitting on the side. Thus, your QE = tax is actually QE = tax only if the economy picks up and then wages will go up also.

There is no "redefining" of inflation. The fact is that cars have become far more efficient and the average miles driven has declined, thus, the input of gas into inflation has been reduced. Food costs more but we also spend probably the smallest amount as a % of disposable income on food than anywhere else in the developed world, thus, the input is less. Housing has gone through a huge deflation, any inflation there is muted.

You "think" a whole lot but have no logic, data, or simple evidence of your "thoughts". Personally, they are nothing more than half-baked libertopian drivel.

I will repost my questions on CRA for you.

 

[LegendKiller]

There hasn't been a single person who could answer these questions.


1. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages.

2. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages that were eventually put into CDOs.

3. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages that were put into CDOs which had CDS issued against them.

4. What was the static pool losses on securitized CRA mortgages.

5. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages that were either first-issue RMBS, CDOs or Synthetic CDOs that were sold into SIVs, SecArb, or multi-seller conduit securitizations.

6. What was the overall terms of securitized CRA mortgages, for example, were they No/Low doc? IO? Option-Arm? Teaser rate?


Until those can be answered, which I have never seen them answered, then the correlation between CRA and the mortgage crisis is dubious at best. The overall volume of CRA mortgages to the entire universe of subprime mortgages during the bubble years was minuscule. Further, I don't think CRA mortgages, for the most part, were sold into securitizations, which was the primary vehicle for leveraging the mortgages and ultimately drove borrowing costs, underwriting/rating fees and CDS ridiculousness.

When you can answer these then you can start pointing fingers at CRA - otherwise you have no grounding in exactly what CRA is, how it affected the housing market and how it did not affect the credit bubble.

 

[ccbadd]

There hasn't been a single person who could answer these questions.


1. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages.

2. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages that were eventually put into CDOs.

3. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages that were put into CDOs which had CDS issued against them.

4. What was the static pool losses on securitized CRA mortgages.

5. What was the total balance of securitized CRA mortgages that were either first-issue RMBS, CDOs or Synthetic CDOs that were sold into SIVs, SecArb, or multi-seller conduit securitizations.

6. What was the overall terms of securitized CRA mortgages, for example, were they No/Low doc? IO? Option-Arm? Teaser rate?


Until those can be answered, which I have never seen them answered, then the correlation between CRA and the mortgage crisis is dubious at best. The overall volume of CRA mortgages to the entire universe of subprime mortgages during the bubble years was minuscule. Further, I don't think CRA mortgages, for the most part, were sold into securitizations, which was the primary vehicle for leveraging the mortgages and ultimately drove borrowing costs, underwriting/rating fees and CDS ridiculousness.

When you can answer these then you can start pointing fingers at CRA - otherwise you have no grounding in exactly what CRA is, how it affected the housing market and how it did not affect the credit bubble.

I got one, what was the CRA's influence on lending standards and REGULATION ENFORCEMENT over the last 35 years? I guess I should think that government is innocent and that the bubble happened in a dark closet that was completely unforeseen by the people that get paid to monitor such things....

 

[LegendKiller]

I got one, what was the CRA's influence on lending standards and REGULATION ENFORCEMENT over the last 35 years? I guess I should think that government is innocent and that the bubble happened in a dark closet that was completely unforeseen by the people that get paid to monitor such things....

LOL...dodged like a little wimp. Thanks for proving the point, you don't know a single thing about the scope/scale/affects of CRA, you just want to point a finger without finding out whether it even had a statistically significant affect on the housing bubble.

This is why nobody who knows a little about this topic can take you seriously. You really don't know a single fucking thing about the subject. instead of being some uneducated fool, why not actually figure this stuff out. It might mean that you become a little smarter rather than taking your talking points from YouTube.

 

[ccbadd]

LOL...dodged like a little wimp. Thanks for proving the point, you don't know a single thing about the scope/scale/affects of CRA, you just want to point a finger without finding out whether it even had a statistically significant affect on the housing bubble.

This is why nobody who knows a little about this topic can take you seriously. You really don't know a single fucking thing about the subject. instead of being some uneducated fool, why not actually figure this stuff out. It might mean that you become a little smarter rather than taking your talking points from YouTube.

Ok mister banker man tell me this. I believe we had somewhere in the area of 8% of the mortgages held by Fannie and Freddy go bad. A little more than half of those are normal to see. So less than 4% of the mortgages held was enough to destroy the industry. Add on top of that, lax over site of investment banks. But all us dumb asses out there should take the words of the people who defended this before the collapse and believe that the CRA's influence had NOTHING to do with the situation. It may not have been the number one factor, but common sense (missing in your poetic language) would say it most definitely contributed.

Now for the "wimp" comment, are you still in high school?

 

[LegendKiller]

Ok mister banker man tell me this. I believe we had somewhere in the area of 8% of the mortgages held by Fannie and Freddy go bad. A little more than half of those are normal to see. So less than 4% of the mortgages held was enough to destroy the industry. Add on top of that, lax over site of investment banks. But all us dumb asses out there should take the words of the people who defended this before the collapse and believe that the CRA's influence had NOTHING to do with the situation. It may not have been the number one factor, but common sense (missing in your poetic language) would say it most definitely contributed.

Now for the "wimp" comment, are you still in high school?

What % of mortgages that the GSEs hold or guaranty are CRA mortgages?

What is the % of defaulted CRA mortgages?

What is the volume of all CRA mortgages.

You cannot attribute the % of defaults to CRA unless you can quantify how many CRA mortgages there were, how many the GSEs guaranteed and how many defaulted.

Furthermore, you need to put that into the perspective of the entire financial crisis, including how many CRA mortgages were put into securitization trusts with the mezz/equity then sold into CDOs to increase leverage. Finally, to complete the cycle, you must understand how many had CDS put against them and also had synthetic CDOs sold.

Without all of that your number of 4 or 8 % is utterly fucking worthless.

BTW, I know the answers to many of these questions but I want to see if you do. Naturally, you have no idea, otherwise you wouldn't even be thinking CRA caused the credit crisis.

This is what is utterly pathetic about most people who blame CRA, they don't even know what they are talking about. If you don't know what you are talking about how can you even suggest a remedy for the situation? Furthermore, how can you even judge somebody else and say they want status quo?

You are like a wild boar with rabies, you just gore what is in front of you without any thought.

 

[OverVolt]

I always thought it was the FHA leading the bubble pack, and how the Fed wasn't as stern as it should have been with raising rates during booms.

 

[ivwshane]

I always thought it was the FHA leading the bubble pack, and how the Fed wasn't as stern as it should have been with raising rates during booms.

This page has a lot of good info:
http://www.philadelphiafed.org/comm...ty/fha-lending_tables-figures-maps.cfm#chart1

Particular interesting (related to your post) are these two charts:

Total Home origination purchases

FHA Home purchase loan origination

And this is also interesting:
FHA market share
http://www.philadelphiafed.org/comm...ty/fha-lending_tables-figures-maps.cfm#table4

It seems that once the bottom fell out FHA became more viable but more importantly it shows that actual FHA loans decreased during the boom. One could surmise then that FHA was not leading the pack.

There appears to be a correlation with the federal rates though:

 

[Darwin333]

I got one, what was the CRA's influence on lending standards and REGULATION ENFORCEMENT over the last 35 years? I guess I should think that government is innocent and that the bubble happened in a dark closet that was completely unforeseen by the people that get paid to monitor such things....

Why would the CRA have an impact on regulation enforcement?

Perhaps LegendKiller can answer this, are underwriting standards even Federally regulated? Seems to me that it would be up to the lender at least assuming a normal banking market in which making stupid loans hurts the bank.

But even if somehow the CRA magically made the regulators ignore whatever you are implying it did, what kind of company knowingly runs themselves into the ground? If I was CEO I would have been in front of Congress and every major media outlet I could with hard numbers and facts about how the government was forcing my company to make bad business decisions. This goes 1000X more in the run up to the collapse since we were in a "pre-bailout/TBTF" world.

I would appreciate an answer to the above but the reality is that we know what happened and why. It was completely short term profit motivated, everyone was making money hand over fist. The banksters knew for a fact that a very significant portion of the loans would go under when not if the completely unsustainable increase in housing prices reversed. Knowing this they sliced and diced them in order to hide how fucked up they where, got the raters to slap AAA ratings on them, and sold them as "impossible to lose money" investments. Now I am not letting the .gov or regulators off the hook but at the same time I am not letting the banks off the hook either. If you could point me to the law or regulation that forced the banks to do the above, again strictly in a bid to generate metric assloads of profit for themselves, I would be willing to reevaluate my position.

 

[Darwin333]

What % of mortgages that the GSEs hold or guaranty are CRA mortgages?

What is the % of defaulted CRA mortgages?

What is the volume of all CRA mortgages.

You cannot attribute the % of defaults to CRA unless you can quantify how many CRA mortgages there were, how many the GSEs guaranteed and how many defaulted.

Furthermore, you need to put that into the perspective of the entire financial crisis, including how many CRA mortgages were put into securitization trusts with the mezz/equity then sold into CDOs to increase leverage. Finally, to complete the cycle, you must understand how many had CDS put against them and also had synthetic CDOs sold.

Without all of that your number of 4 or 8 % is utterly fucking worthless.

BTW, I know the answers to many of these questions but I want to see if you do. Naturally, you have no idea, otherwise you wouldn't even be thinking CRA caused the credit crisis.

This is what is utterly pathetic about most people who blame CRA, they don't even know what they are talking about. If you don't know what you are talking about how can you even suggest a remedy for the situation? Furthermore, how can you even judge somebody else and say they want status quo?

You are like a wild boar with rabies, you just gore what is in front of you without any thought.

Very well done.

If you would allow me to go OT a bit, I have a few questions I hope you would answer.

Do you think that anything has been done so far to prevent a similar catastrophe from happening again in the future? If so what has been done and how significant is it?

Would you agree that a ton of crimes were committed by the banksters, namely fraud, during this entire ordeal?

Would you agree that our current form of regulation is broken when a bank can make $1 billion in profit doing something wrong and then pay a $50 million dollar fine when caught (leaving $950M profit)?

Not sure how familiar you are with HFT but if you can answer, do you think that HFT has given the banks an unfair and illegal advantage especially in the area of "price discovery"? At the very least would you agree that thousands of orders are placed by HFT that the institutions placing them have no intentions on filling at the time the order is placed?