IT FAILED.
POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Thursday, October 2, 2008 21:24
VIEWED: 6432
PAGE 7 of 8
Deregulation is just "Patriot Act" speak for legalized criminal activity by the fat-cats in a system that is rigged.
Had the system not been rigged, many of these business would have never been able to be so reckless in the first place, let alone even think about putting out such rediculous loans.
You think houses would have been so easy to get in the early eighties when interest rates topped out at around 21%, even with today's laws?
No F'ing way!
You can thank a system that can change interest rates to make the waves move this way and that.
Even Hero has to admit that the entire system is rigged and that we are in a system where powers above us make all the money decisions, even though we can all choose to give ourselves a very long leash if we work hard for it...
It's kinda like a Communism reboot.....
COMMUNISM 2.0
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"BTW people. I don't feel the need to defend my position on minorities anymore. Anything I said before wasn't racist, but it was fact."
Hello,
I do not feel you are racist, but I do feel you are misinformed. Someone, somewhere, has explained fair lending rules to you in a way to support their political opinion.
Unfortunately, they themselves were either ill informed or uninterested in the whole truth.
As someone who has actually worked for a major financial institution, and who was exposed to the decisioning process, I can assure you that we lent in all 50 states, to all stripes and colors, and race was not a factor in decisioning.
Let me reiterate that. A file was approved and stipulations set before race information was even collected. (And it IS collected before a file is closed, on a voluntary basis, for government reporting purposes.)
Because a file is approved and stipulations set before race/sex data is collected, it is impossible to show that the bank was tailoring its approvals or stipulations to meet some imagined regulatory quota.
I'd also like to point out that my bank, one of the largest in the nation, didn't invest much in that sub-prime mess. It didn't matter. When you have bad lending policies, you end up with bad paper. It has nothing to do with race (or minority protection), and everything to do with my carefully outlined description of how lending went wrong.
That's lending, as in lending to everyone. Not just minorities. In fact, the #1 individual who is cheerily walking away from upside down homes is the wealthy investor. The guy who bought five houses hoping to flip them. He is now writing off his bad investment and moving on to greener pastures. Homeowners who live in their homes, by and large, do everything in their power to keep the house before regrettfully letting it slip away because they've run out of options.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:* in Mr. Universe voice*
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Even Hero has to admit that the entire system is rigged and that we are in a system where powers above us make all the money decisions, even though we can all choose to give ourselves a very long leash if we work hard for it...
It's kinda like a Communism reboot.....
COMMUNISM 2.0
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Six, you're very smart.
Iagreeisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The sad truth is, there are laws against discrimination, and this required the banks to take on, at the very least, a certain percentage of bad loans by minorities.
See, that's where you lose my interest and support - when you start insisting that it's not the hundreds of billions in bad debt that whites incurred, it's the bad loans to MINORITIES that really brought the house of cards crashing down.
Let's get this straight, once and for all: What brought the whole thing crashing down around Wall Street's (and the Administration's) heads was that they were giving bad loans out like free crack samples, and got everybody hooked on free money. They weren't discriminating, except in the sense that THEY WEREN'T DISCRIMINATING about who the hell they lent money to. Did some minorities get one over on "the Man" and get more house than they should have gotten? You betcha. But I bet that, statistically speaking, on a per-capita basis, the percentage of bad loans written to minorities is not out of line with the number of bad loans written to white folk.
The REAL minority here is the sheer number of people who have bad loans that are in foreclosure. They come in all races, creeds, colors, and sexes, but they're a solid minority because the fact of the matter is, there just aren't that damned many bad mortgages on the books. What's dragging the system down is the knowledge that there ARE bad loans out, and we don't know exactly how many, or which ones, are the bad ones, so it taints the whole market.
Think of those bad loans as the "poison pills" of the market. Like poisoned Tylenol, you might be able to figure out which batch is affected, but short of testing every single pill in that batch, you have to assume that the whole batch is bad and be prepared to toss them out and take the loss. And THAT is where we're at with the mortgage and credit markets today.
"Because we gave loans to minorities" is an affront to anyone with a brain. It's not the minorities that are crashing the system (though it would be kind of ironically hilarious if it WERE!), it's the SYSTEM that is crashing the system. They were falling all over themselves to loan money to anyone and everyone, and even when the states themselves tried to reign the banks in, the banks filed federal lawsuits to ALLOW themm to keep writing what they knew were bad loans - because they were then selling the loans up the chain in bundles with other mortgages, so it was assumed that any "bad ones" would be more than covered by the good.
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
Trolls Against McCain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And by the way, why isn't anyone suggesting that Sarah Palin, with all her years of executive experience, ride in to the rescue, instead of sending McCain teetering off to Washington to save us all?
I mean, Palin IS qualified... isn't she?
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
Trolls Against McCain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Definitely, Mike.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Let's get this straight, once and for all: What brought the whole thing crashing down around Wall Street's (and the Administration's) heads was that they were giving bad loans out like free crack samples, and got everybody hooked on free money.
I bet that, statistically speaking, on a per-capita basis, the percentage of bad loans written to minorities is not out of line with the number of bad loans written to white folk.
Cisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And here we go again....
If the House votes it down...how far are we looking to fall here?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I resent being stampeded by anyone - democrat or repubican. The message I'm hearing is - Don't look ! No time to think ! Just let us do anything we want !
SignyM brought this article to my attention. And I'm all for recapitalization IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE. Which is to say NOT the administration's plan. But don't take my word for it that the bailout is a scam. Here's an expert opinion:
Is Purchasing $700 billion of Toxic Assets the Best Way to Recapitalize the Financial System? No! It is Rather a Disgrace and Rip-Off Benefitting only the Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of Banks
Nouriel Roubini | Sep 28, 2008
Whenever there is a systemic banking crisis there is a need to recapitalize the banking/financial system to avoid an excessive and destructive credit contraction. But purchasing toxic/illiquid assets of the financial system is not the most effective and efficient way to recapitalize the banking system. Such recapitalization – via the use of public resources – can occur in a number of alternative ways: purchase of bad assets/loans; government injection of preferred shares; government injection of common shares; government purchase of subordinated debt; government issuance of government bonds to be placed on the banks’ balance sheet; government injection of cash; government credit lines extended to the banks; government assumption of government liabilities.
A recent IMF study of 42 systemic banking crises across the world provides evidence on how different crises were resolved. First of all only in 32 of the 42 cases there was government financial intervention of any sort; in 10 cases systemic banking crises were resolved without any government financial intervention. Of the 32 cases where the government recapitalized the banking system only seven included a program of purchase of bad assets/loans (like the one proposed by the US Treasury). In 25 other cases there was no government purchase of such toxic assets. In 6 cases the government purchased preferred shares; in 4 cases the government purchased common shares; in 11 cases the government purchased subordinated debt; in 12 cases the government injected cash in the banks; in 2 cases credit was extended to the banks; and in 3 cases the government assumed bank liabilities. Even in cases where bad assets were purchased – as in Chile – dividends were suspended and all profits and recoveries had to be used to repurchase the bad assets. Of course in most cases multiple forms of government recapitalization of banks were used.
But government purchase of bad assets was the exception rather than the rule. It was used only in Mexico, Japan, Bolivia, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Malaysia, and Paraguay. Even in six of these seven cases where the recapitalization of banks occurred via the government purchase of bad assets such recapitalization was a combination of purchase of bad assets together with other forms of recapitalization (such as government purchase of preferred shares or subordinated debt).
In the Scandinavian banking crises (Sweden, Norway, Finland) that are a model of how a banking crisis should be resolved there was not government purchase of bad assets; most of the recapitalization occurred through various injections of public capital in the banking system. Purchase of toxic assets instead – in most cases in which it was used – made the fiscal cost of the crisis much higher and expensive (as in Japan and Mexico).
Thus the claim by the Fed and Treasury that spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification. This way of recapitalizing financial institutions is a total rip-off that will mostly benefit – at a huge expense for the US taxpayer - the common and preferred shareholders and even unsecured creditors of the banks. Even the late addition of some warrants that the government will get in exchange of this massive injection of public money is only a cosmetic fig leaf of dubious value as the form and size of such warrants is totally v
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look for more CRASH if Shrub , Inc. doesn't get what they want...
Expect a " Banker's Holiday " very soon...
The pattern repeats...Smart folk don't keep their Federal Reserve 'Notes' in BANKS...
Zoe: " Get OUT , Get out NOW ! "
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=9430
Lots of folk have been seeing all this coming for a long time now...
Controlled Demolition...ECON-Bomb...Financial 911
Put your spare 'NOTES' into canned goods , staple foods , SEEDS , and other commodity and comfort items...Buy in Bulk !
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME