• 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."

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

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

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,537
9,528
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well why did the subprime market crash?
A good ol' fashioned market boom with irresponsible lending practices fueled mostly by Wall Street, foreign banks, and independent subprime mortgage lenders. The last part is important because the "subprime" offered by Fannie/Freddie was only subprime in the sense that its underwriting guidelines were just slightly looser than Fannie/Freddie's conforming prime programs. While, what the independent subprime mortgage lenders offered was the real deal subprime that would approve anyone with a pulse. And none of them were ever forced to make a bad loan. Not a single one. Quite the opposite, you couldn't get them not to do one.

Look, I've worked mortgage for 15 years. In my professional opinion, the notion that Fannie/Freddie or the CRA caused the housing bust is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Laughable.

What really happened is that as long as home prices kept going up at a record pace, no one could lose. So the attitude became, Why not do the deal? Unfortunately, home prices couldn't keep going up forever.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: loki8481
supporting it to the extent of advocating violence against the state of CA if they legalize gay marriage.
And yet you support a man running for president who selected a running mate who is quoted as saying (within the last couple days) that she supports a Constitutional Amendment at the federal level completely banning gay marriage... Something doesn't add up.
when did Biden say that? :confused:
 

SilthDraeth

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2003
2,635
0
71
I just posted an excerpt, the point was to read the whole article and comment on the journalism part, not the excerpt.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,158
24,754
136
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
I just posted an excerpt, the point was to read the whole article and comment on the journalism part, not the excerpt.
Well I did comment on the journalism part as well. He started with a false premise and then decided that the media was biased because they didn't report on stories centering on his false premise.

Bad information + poor reasoning = shitty conclusion.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,183
610
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: loki8481
supporting it to the extent of advocating violence against the state of CA if they legalize gay marriage.
And yet you support a man running for president who selected a running mate who is quoted as saying (within the last couple days) that she supports a Constitutional Amendment at the federal level completely banning gay marriage... Something doesn't add up.
when did Biden say that? :confused:
Yawn.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
when did Biden say that? :confused:
I'm sorry, the last few weeks practically every comment I've seen from you has been defending conservatives, so I assumed you were voting McCain. I couldn't fathom your rationale...
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,183
610
126
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: loki8481
when did Biden say that? :confused:
I'm sorry, the last few weeks practically every comment I've seen from you has been defending conservatives, so I assumed you were voting McCain. I couldn't fathom your rationale...
Exactly. You can't act a certain way for weeks and then be believed when you suddenly say something contrary to those actions.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,537
9,528
126
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
I just posted an excerpt, the point was to read the whole article and comment on the journalism part, not the excerpt.
That's because his claims that the media has not investigated this issue are false.

Text

Text

Text

Text
 

SecPro

Member
Jul 17, 2007
147
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well why did the subprime market crash?
And none of them were ever forced to make a bad loan. Not a single one. Quite the opposite, you couldn't get them not to do one.

Look, I've worked mortgage for 15 years. In my professional opinion, the notion that Fannie/Freddie or the CRA caused the housing bust is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Laughable.

What really happened is that as long as home prices kept going up at a record pace, no one could lose. So the attitude became, Why not do the deal? Unfortunately, home prices couldn't keep going up forever.
First no one in this forum has debunked shit about the meltdown. Nothing. Secondly, you're right, no one held an actual gun to anyones head and forced them to make a loan. But since you're a self procalimed expert on the mortgage industry why don't yopu talk in detail about the CRA, the CRA ranking system and it's importance to mortgage/loan providers. If you can do that accurately and intelligently, which i doubt, please tell us again how no one was "forcing anyone to make bad loans." What a frigging joke.

There's more than one reason for the current situation but to dismiss F and F as not having a part or especially the CRA having a major part is just pure, unadulterated ignorance.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
In a fantasy land far, far away, the delusional proclaim the CRA as a major part of the interbank liquidity crisis.

The rest of us know better and **snicker** at the talking points ...
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,537
9,528
126
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well why did the subprime market crash?
And none of them were ever forced to make a bad loan. Not a single one. Quite the opposite, you couldn't get them not to do one.

Look, I've worked mortgage for 15 years. In my professional opinion, the notion that Fannie/Freddie or the CRA caused the housing bust is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Laughable.

What really happened is that as long as home prices kept going up at a record pace, no one could lose. So the attitude became, Why not do the deal? Unfortunately, home prices couldn't keep going up forever.
First no one in this forum has debunked shit about the meltdown. Nothing. Secondly, you're right, no one held an actual gun to anyones head and forced them to make a loan. But since you're a self procalimed expert on the mortgage industry why don't yopu talk in detail about the CRA, the CRA ranking system and it's importance to mortgage/loan providers. If you can do that accurately and intelligently, which i doubt, please tell us again how no one was "forcing anyone to make bad loans." What a frigging joke.

There's more than one reason for the current situation but to dismiss F and F as not having a part or especially the CRA having a major part is just pure, unadulterated ignorance.
First, there are dozens of threads where this has been debunked (now including this one, see my links above), more than one of them created by me. The search function works. Use it.

Secondly, why don't you tell me because you obviously don't know jack shit about the issue. How about you tell me what the differences were between a Fannie Mae "subprime" loan and the subprime loans offered by independent mortgage lenders like Accredited, New Century, or Argent? Terms, underwriting criteria, etc. I bet you don't even have a clue.
How about the fact that only ONE of the top 25 subprime mortgage lenders (Wells Fargo) was even bound to the CRA? While the largest and by far the loosest (Countrywide) was not bound at all. Is that how you're telling us that these lenders were forced to make these bad loans?

Finally, I did not say that F&F or the CRA did not play a part, that's your pure unadulterated ignorance, fuckwad. Obviously a crisis of this magnitude has a large number of causes. How about you wake up and realize that your partisan rhetoric has you believing that the source of the best loans out there was the biggest cause of the collapse? Ask yourself, does what you're arguing really make any sense? At all?


edit: Oops, I forgot to mention that the Clinton changes to CRA were something that Fannie/Freddie and banks and lenders lobbied hard for. Then the GLBA, which they also lobbied for, gave them the opportunity to sell more of these deals up to Wall Street, etc. and make even more. They weren't forced, they desperately wanted to be able to do these loans. Because as long as home values kept going up, they couldn't lose.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,488
3,597
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well why did the subprime market crash?
And none of them were ever forced to make a bad loan. Not a single one. Quite the opposite, you couldn't get them not to do one.

Look, I've worked mortgage for 15 years. In my professional opinion, the notion that Fannie/Freddie or the CRA caused the housing bust is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Laughable.

What really happened is that as long as home prices kept going up at a record pace, no one could lose. So the attitude became, Why not do the deal? Unfortunately, home prices couldn't keep going up forever.
First no one in this forum has debunked shit about the meltdown. Nothing. Secondly, you're right, no one held an actual gun to anyones head and forced them to make a loan. But since you're a self procalimed expert on the mortgage industry why don't yopu talk in detail about the CRA, the CRA ranking system and it's importance to mortgage/loan providers. If you can do that accurately and intelligently, which i doubt, please tell us again how no one was "forcing anyone to make bad loans." What a frigging joke.

There's more than one reason for the current situation but to dismiss F and F as not having a part or especially the CRA having a major part is just pure, unadulterated ignorance.
First, there are dozens of threads where this has been debunked (now including this one, see my links above), more than one of them created by me. The search function works. Use it.

Secondly, why don't you tell me because you obviously don't know jack shit about the issue. How about you tell me what the differences were between a Fannie Mae "subprime" loan and the subprime loans offered by independent mortgage lenders like Accredited, New Century, or Argent? Terms, underwriting criteria, etc. I bet you don't even have a clue.
How about the fact that only ONE of the top 25 subprime mortgage lenders (Wells Fargo) was even bound to the CRA? While the largest and by far the loosest (Countrywide) was not bound at all. Is that how you're telling us that these lenders were forced to make these bad loans?

Finally, I did not say that F&F or the CRA did not play a part, that's your pure unadulterated ignorance, fuckwad. Obviously a crisis of this magnitude has a large number of causes. How about you wake up and realize that your partisan rhetoric has you believing that the source of the best loans out there was the biggest cause of the collapse? Ask yourself, does what you're arguing really make any sense? At all?


edit: Oops, I forgot to mention that the Clinton changes to CRA were something that Fannie/Freddie and banks and lenders lobbied hard for. Then the GLBA, which they also lobbied for, gave them the opportunity to sell more of these deals up to Wall Street, etc. and make even more. They weren't forced, they desperately wanted to be able to do these loans. Because as long as home values kept going up, they couldn't lose.
Sweet! I want in on that action!!
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well why did the subprime market crash?
And none of them were ever forced to make a bad loan. Not a single one. Quite the opposite, you couldn't get them not to do one.

Look, I've worked mortgage for 15 years. In my professional opinion, the notion that Fannie/Freddie or the CRA caused the housing bust is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Laughable.

What really happened is that as long as home prices kept going up at a record pace, no one could lose. So the attitude became, Why not do the deal? Unfortunately, home prices couldn't keep going up forever.
First no one in this forum has debunked shit about the meltdown. Nothing. Secondly, you're right, no one held an actual gun to anyones head and forced them to make a loan. But since you're a self procalimed expert on the mortgage industry why don't yopu talk in detail about the CRA, the CRA ranking system and it's importance to mortgage/loan providers. If you can do that accurately and intelligently, which i doubt, please tell us again how no one was "forcing anyone to make bad loans." What a frigging joke.

There's more than one reason for the current situation but to dismiss F and F as not having a part or especially the CRA having a major part is just pure, unadulterated ignorance.
First, there are dozens of threads where this has been debunked (now including this one, see my links above), more than one of them created by me. The search function works. Use it.

Secondly, why don't you tell me because you obviously don't know jack shit about the issue. How about you tell me what the differences were between a Fannie Mae "subprime" loan and the subprime loans offered by independent mortgage lenders like Accredited, New Century, or Argent? Terms, underwriting criteria, etc. I bet you don't even have a clue.
How about the fact that only ONE of the top 25 subprime mortgage lenders (Wells Fargo) was even bound to the CRA? While the largest and by far the loosest (Countrywide) was not bound at all. Is that how you're telling us that these lenders were forced to make these bad loans?

Finally, I did not say that F&F or the CRA did not play a part, that's your pure unadulterated ignorance, fuckwad. Obviously a crisis of this magnitude has a large number of causes. How about you wake up and realize that your partisan rhetoric has you believing that the source of the best loans out there was the biggest cause of the collapse? Ask yourself, does what you're arguing really make any sense? At all?


edit: Oops, I forgot to mention that the Clinton changes to CRA were something that Fannie/Freddie and banks and lenders lobbied hard for. Then the GLBA, which they also lobbied for, gave them the opportunity to sell more of these deals up to Wall Street, etc. and make even more. They weren't forced, they desperately wanted to be able to do these loans. Because as long as home values kept going up, they couldn't lose.

And Lets not let the dumbass hacks forget that these mortgages shipped up to wall street were packaged into Derivitave products and exponetionally made things worse once the collapsing real estate market started
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
Blog Post URL

Interested in anyone trying to refute any of this. I only posted the first excerpt below.

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America: I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know. This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration. It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans. What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay. The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating. They end up worse off than before.
I bet you his blog web traffic is through the roof today after being mentioned on Rush today.

Need i comment that the Writer Specializes in Science fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and LDS fiction.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: smashp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well why did the subprime market crash?
And none of them were ever forced to make a bad loan. Not a single one. Quite the opposite, you couldn't get them not to do one.

Look, I've worked mortgage for 15 years. In my professional opinion, the notion that Fannie/Freddie or the CRA caused the housing bust is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Laughable.

What really happened is that as long as home prices kept going up at a record pace, no one could lose. So the attitude became, Why not do the deal? Unfortunately, home prices couldn't keep going up forever.
First no one in this forum has debunked shit about the meltdown. Nothing. Secondly, you're right, no one held an actual gun to anyones head and forced them to make a loan. But since you're a self procalimed expert on the mortgage industry why don't yopu talk in detail about the CRA, the CRA ranking system and it's importance to mortgage/loan providers. If you can do that accurately and intelligently, which i doubt, please tell us again how no one was "forcing anyone to make bad loans." What a frigging joke.

There's more than one reason for the current situation but to dismiss F and F as not having a part or especially the CRA having a major part is just pure, unadulterated ignorance.
First, there are dozens of threads where this has been debunked (now including this one, see my links above), more than one of them created by me. The search function works. Use it.

Secondly, why don't you tell me because you obviously don't know jack shit about the issue. How about you tell me what the differences were between a Fannie Mae "subprime" loan and the subprime loans offered by independent mortgage lenders like Accredited, New Century, or Argent? Terms, underwriting criteria, etc. I bet you don't even have a clue.
How about the fact that only ONE of the top 25 subprime mortgage lenders (Wells Fargo) was even bound to the CRA? While the largest and by far the loosest (Countrywide) was not bound at all. Is that how you're telling us that these lenders were forced to make these bad loans?

Finally, I did not say that F&F or the CRA did not play a part, that's your pure unadulterated ignorance, fuckwad. Obviously a crisis of this magnitude has a large number of causes. How about you wake up and realize that your partisan rhetoric has you believing that the source of the best loans out there was the biggest cause of the collapse? Ask yourself, does what you're arguing really make any sense? At all?


edit: Oops, I forgot to mention that the Clinton changes to CRA were something that Fannie/Freddie and banks and lenders lobbied hard for. Then the GLBA, which they also lobbied for, gave them the opportunity to sell more of these deals up to Wall Street, etc. and make even more. They weren't forced, they desperately wanted to be able to do these loans. Because as long as home values kept going up, they couldn't lose.

And Lets not let the dumbass hacks forget that these mortgages shipped up to wall street were packaged into Derivitave products and exponetionally made things worse once the collapsing real estate market started
I haven't seen anyone ask this so here goes:

If banks/whoever are losing their shirts in the collapse because of these crazy derivatives, then who is making the money of of that???
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,158
24,754
136
Originally posted by: smashp

I bet you his blog web traffic is through the roof today after being mentioned on Rush today.

Need i comment that the Writer Specializes in Science fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and LDS fiction.
I always wonder where they are coming from when these obscure articles pop up. Guess I should listen to Rush more. Who wants to bet that Rush's opinion on the problem and the OP's are shockingly similar?
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: smashp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well why did the subprime market crash?
And none of them were ever forced to make a bad loan. Not a single one. Quite the opposite, you couldn't get them not to do one.

Look, I've worked mortgage for 15 years. In my professional opinion, the notion that Fannie/Freddie or the CRA caused the housing bust is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Laughable.

What really happened is that as long as home prices kept going up at a record pace, no one could lose. So the attitude became, Why not do the deal? Unfortunately, home prices couldn't keep going up forever.
First no one in this forum has debunked shit about the meltdown. Nothing. Secondly, you're right, no one held an actual gun to anyones head and forced them to make a loan. But since you're a self procalimed expert on the mortgage industry why don't yopu talk in detail about the CRA, the CRA ranking system and it's importance to mortgage/loan providers. If you can do that accurately and intelligently, which i doubt, please tell us again how no one was "forcing anyone to make bad loans." What a frigging joke.

There's more than one reason for the current situation but to dismiss F and F as not having a part or especially the CRA having a major part is just pure, unadulterated ignorance.
First, there are dozens of threads where this has been debunked (now including this one, see my links above), more than one of them created by me. The search function works. Use it.

Secondly, why don't you tell me because you obviously don't know jack shit about the issue. How about you tell me what the differences were between a Fannie Mae "subprime" loan and the subprime loans offered by independent mortgage lenders like Accredited, New Century, or Argent? Terms, underwriting criteria, etc. I bet you don't even have a clue.
How about the fact that only ONE of the top 25 subprime mortgage lenders (Wells Fargo) was even bound to the CRA? While the largest and by far the loosest (Countrywide) was not bound at all. Is that how you're telling us that these lenders were forced to make these bad loans?

Finally, I did not say that F&F or the CRA did not play a part, that's your pure unadulterated ignorance, fuckwad. Obviously a crisis of this magnitude has a large number of causes. How about you wake up and realize that your partisan rhetoric has you believing that the source of the best loans out there was the biggest cause of the collapse? Ask yourself, does what you're arguing really make any sense? At all?


edit: Oops, I forgot to mention that the Clinton changes to CRA were something that Fannie/Freddie and banks and lenders lobbied hard for. Then the GLBA, which they also lobbied for, gave them the opportunity to sell more of these deals up to Wall Street, etc. and make even more. They weren't forced, they desperately wanted to be able to do these loans. Because as long as home values kept going up, they couldn't lose.

And Lets not let the dumbass hacks forget that these mortgages shipped up to wall street were packaged into Derivitave products and exponetionally made things worse once the collapsing real estate market started
I haven't seen anyone ask this so here goes:

If banks/whoever are losing their shirts in the collapse because of these crazy derivatives, then who is making the money of of that???

The money was already made. Just ask our current Secratary of the Treasuray about his bonuses at GS and what drove the booming financial market of the last couple years. And why he left

Or ask Dick Fuld

the gains were drained out of the markets when it exploaded past 14000 and the cost are coming to bear now.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: smashp

I bet you his blog web traffic is through the roof today after being mentioned on Rush today.

Need i comment that the Writer Specializes in Science fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and LDS fiction.
I always wonder where they are coming from when these obscure articles pop up. Guess I should listen to Rush more. Who wants to bet that Rush's opinion on the problem and the OP's are shockingly similar?
When one of these BS articles pop up out of left field by some obscure writer, Check what time the post came in at.

I mean this garbage thread started at 3:27.

The OP had to get his ditto on
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: smashp
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: smashp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well why did the subprime market crash?
And none of them were ever forced to make a bad loan. Not a single one. Quite the opposite, you couldn't get them not to do one.

Look, I've worked mortgage for 15 years. In my professional opinion, the notion that Fannie/Freddie or the CRA caused the housing bust is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Laughable.

What really happened is that as long as home prices kept going up at a record pace, no one could lose. So the attitude became, Why not do the deal? Unfortunately, home prices couldn't keep going up forever.
First no one in this forum has debunked shit about the meltdown. Nothing. Secondly, you're right, no one held an actual gun to anyones head and forced them to make a loan. But since you're a self procalimed expert on the mortgage industry why don't yopu talk in detail about the CRA, the CRA ranking system and it's importance to mortgage/loan providers. If you can do that accurately and intelligently, which i doubt, please tell us again how no one was "forcing anyone to make bad loans." What a frigging joke.

There's more than one reason for the current situation but to dismiss F and F as not having a part or especially the CRA having a major part is just pure, unadulterated ignorance.
First, there are dozens of threads where this has been debunked (now including this one, see my links above), more than one of them created by me. The search function works. Use it.

Secondly, why don't you tell me because you obviously don't know jack shit about the issue. How about you tell me what the differences were between a Fannie Mae "subprime" loan and the subprime loans offered by independent mortgage lenders like Accredited, New Century, or Argent? Terms, underwriting criteria, etc. I bet you don't even have a clue.
How about the fact that only ONE of the top 25 subprime mortgage lenders (Wells Fargo) was even bound to the CRA? While the largest and by far the loosest (Countrywide) was not bound at all. Is that how you're telling us that these lenders were forced to make these bad loans?

Finally, I did not say that F&F or the CRA did not play a part, that's your pure unadulterated ignorance, fuckwad. Obviously a crisis of this magnitude has a large number of causes. How about you wake up and realize that your partisan rhetoric has you believing that the source of the best loans out there was the biggest cause of the collapse? Ask yourself, does what you're arguing really make any sense? At all?


edit: Oops, I forgot to mention that the Clinton changes to CRA were something that Fannie/Freddie and banks and lenders lobbied hard for. Then the GLBA, which they also lobbied for, gave them the opportunity to sell more of these deals up to Wall Street, etc. and make even more. They weren't forced, they desperately wanted to be able to do these loans. Because as long as home values kept going up, they couldn't lose.

And Lets not let the dumbass hacks forget that these mortgages shipped up to wall street were packaged into Derivitave products and exponetionally made things worse once the collapsing real estate market started
I haven't seen anyone ask this so here goes:

If banks/whoever are losing their shirts in the collapse because of these crazy derivatives, then who is making the money of of that???

The money was already made. Just ask our current Secratary of the Treasuray about his bonuses at GS and what drove the booming financial market of the last couple years. And why he left

Or ask Dick Fuld

the gains were drained out of the markets when it exploaded past 14000 and the cost are coming to bear now.
I still don't understand how these derivatives work. Someone has to be holding the paper that the banks owe there money to?? Who is that?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: loki8481
when did Biden say that? :confused:
I'm sorry, the last few weeks practically every comment I've seen from you has been defending conservatives, so I assumed you were voting McCain. I couldn't fathom your rationale...
Exactly. You can't act a certain way for weeks and then be believed when you suddenly say something contrary to those actions.
I can see how you'd get that impression, every time I find myself almost about to post something probama, I read a post by jpeyton or moonbeam ;) but it doesn't change the fact that I disagree with McCain on nearly every important issue.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: smashp


And Lets not let the dumbass hacks forget that these mortgages shipped up to wall street were packaged into Derivitave products and exponetionally made things worse once the collapsing real estate market started
I haven't seen anyone ask this so here goes:

If banks/whoever are losing their shirts in the collapse because of these crazy derivatives, then who is making the money of of that???
That's an excellent and key question. 60 Minutes did a great segment I can't find with part of the answer - and a couple of other great segments that are easily found.

The segment I can't find began with an interview with a guy at his many tens-of-millions house on the beach, having profited pretty clearly hundreds of million. He's out now.

Basically, all kinds of people got paid by this situation - frokm the mortgage sellers who profited from the commisions instead of saying 'sorry, you don't qualify' to the Wall Street firms who sold the crap by bundling it with credit default swap 'insurance' that was a very profitable business until the loans got called.

The old saw about my selling you a bridge in Brooklyn is especially apt for this - selling you bad mortgages, wrapped into fancy derivative products, with phony insurance - it's all nice to get money for crap. It was simply corrupt and all kinds of people profited until it crashed. People pushing for more and more, not being satisfied with 'safe' profits, eventually caused a big crash. It made sense from each person's point of view - you play along you make money - what was missing was the objective oversight to say 'no'.

Why is that? Because the financial industy got the political clout, because the political system was corrupted by big money, to prevent regulation in the public interest.

You think any of the people who made all the money by the bad behavior - unless there are a few who were especially bad and can be held criminally liable - are paying it back?

The solution could have come from any part of the system - a government that said 'whatever Wall Street and the public wants, we're doing the right thing'; a public that said 'we'll be vigilant and demand regulation occur'; Wall Street self-regulating. Obviously, none of that happened, because the system encourages it not to. Wall Street makes more money (for a long time) by pushing the rules, government gets elected by playing along with them, and the public can't be bothered and is largely misinformed by corporate media.

One thing that helped the last time was a legitimately reformist government, elected by an outraged public, creating the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate and reduce the abuses. It worked pretty well for decades. Then - if you want to pick a point for it - came Ronald Reagan, with his grandfatherly charm saying 'oh, no, greed is good', the wolf in sheep's clothing who loosed James Watt on the environment, Edwin Meese on the constitution, Elliot Abrams on Central America, and deregulation on the nation's businesses.

The nation took a turn for the wrong.
 

SilthDraeth

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2003
2,635
0
71
I posted at 3:27, because I happen to get off work at 3:30.

So I posted a few minutes early, and from work. I actually read Scott Card, and I didn't catch it on Rush, though I found out, by his site, etc, that it was featured on Rush. Yes I listen to Rush. No I don't feel the need to try and preach what Rush says to the people here, obviously if they cared what Rush said, they would listen to him.

I will trust Vic's insight in this manner. There is still truth in the blog by Card, and of course, I am not so naive to think it is the only reason. But it is still a significant one, in the current political climate.

Craig, good analysis and explanation also.

I know the whole thing was rotten all the way through, but main stream media doesn't report any of it, which again is the real point of the blog post. Card just used a simple liner that though not 100% was still correct.
 

SecPro

Member
Jul 17, 2007
147
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well why did the subprime market crash?
And none of them were ever forced to make a bad loan. Not a single one. Quite the opposite, you couldn't get them not to do one.

Look, I've worked mortgage for 15 years. In my professional opinion, the notion that Fannie/Freddie or the CRA caused the housing bust is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Laughable.

What really happened is that as long as home prices kept going up at a record pace, no one could lose. So the attitude became, Why not do the deal? Unfortunately, home prices couldn't keep going up forever.
First no one in this forum has debunked shit about the meltdown. Nothing. Secondly, you're right, no one held an actual gun to anyones head and forced them to make a loan. But since you're a self procalimed expert on the mortgage industry why don't yopu talk in detail about the CRA, the CRA ranking system and it's importance to mortgage/loan providers. If you can do that accurately and intelligently, which i doubt, please tell us again how no one was "forcing anyone to make bad loans." What a frigging joke.

There's more than one reason for the current situation but to dismiss F and F as not having a part or especially the CRA having a major part is just pure, unadulterated ignorance.
First, there are dozens of threads where this has been debunked (now including this one, see my links above), more than one of them created by me. The search function works. Use it.

Secondly, why don't you tell me because you obviously don't know jack shit about the issue. How about you tell me what the differences were between a Fannie Mae "subprime" loan and the subprime loans offered by independent mortgage lenders like Accredited, New Century, or Argent? Terms, underwriting criteria, etc. I bet you don't even have a clue.
How about the fact that only ONE of the top 25 subprime mortgage lenders (Wells Fargo) was even bound to the CRA? While the largest and by far the loosest (Countrywide) was not bound at all. Is that how you're telling us that these lenders were forced to make these bad loans?

Finally, I did not say that F&F or the CRA did not play a part, that's your pure unadulterated ignorance, fuckwad. Obviously a crisis of this magnitude has a large number of causes. How about you wake up and realize that your partisan rhetoric has you believing that the source of the best loans out there was the biggest cause of the collapse? Ask yourself, does what you're arguing really make any sense? At all?


edit: Oops, I forgot to mention that the Clinton changes to CRA were something that Fannie/Freddie and banks and lenders lobbied hard for. Then the GLBA, which they also lobbied for, gave them the opportunity to sell more of these deals up to Wall Street, etc. and make even more. They weren't forced, they desperately wanted to be able to do these loans. Because as long as home values kept going up, they couldn't lose.
In the interest of civility let me say this. You and I agree on more about this issue than is apparent here although I think you are underestimating the amount of influence FnF and CRA had on the situation.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS