Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2014, 12:56 AM
 
45,314 posts, read 26,829,168 times
Reputation: 23677

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
As long as people can afford the payments they sign up for, I think we are OK.

In my area, which was a foreclosure hotspot, droves of people were taking loans with unaffordable terms. That was the problem.

Like the vast majority of people in my area, I found myself substantially upside down a few years ago. I seriously considered "walking away", but in the end, I chose to stay put and keep making my mortgage payments. Why? The payments are affordable, so why not?
I'm glad you stayed put and honored the agreement you made. Walking away damages the system as much as people making unaffordable agreements.

One doesn't agree to a purchase and only pay when the circumstances are favorable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2014, 07:49 AM
 
2,838 posts, read 3,485,211 times
Reputation: 1406
It's not the mortgages that are the problem, but rather the trading of them as debt securities on financial markets. What needs to be done is to reenact the provisions of Glass-Steagall prohibiting proprietary trading by bank entities that were repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 09:30 AM
 
26,155 posts, read 21,399,667 times
Reputation: 22751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
It's not the mortgages that are the problem, but rather the trading of them as debt securities on financial markets. What needs to be done is to reenact the provisions of Glass-Steagall prohibiting proprietary trading by bank entities that were repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.


How much of an issue is prop trading now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 09:44 AM
 
2,838 posts, read 3,485,211 times
Reputation: 1406
It's a big issue because the banking lobby have been able to delay implementation of Dodd-Frank while introducing legislation to repeal it. There has to be a clear dividing line between banking that is insured, and market trading that is not. Otherwise, what happened before will certainly happen again; and you and I and everyone not responsible will end up paying for it - and for a very long time to come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 02:08 PM
 
26,155 posts, read 21,399,667 times
Reputation: 22751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
It's a big issue because the banking lobby have been able to delay implementation of Dodd-Frank while introducing legislation to repeal it. There has to be a clear dividing line between banking that is insured, and market trading that is not. Otherwise, what happened before will certainly happen again; and you and I and everyone not responsible will end up paying for it - and for a very long time to come.


Prop trading has greatly reduced at the banks since the crisis. They have all been shedding assets and moving away from it for some time. I'm not sure you have actually been paying attention
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 02:19 PM
 
30,860 posts, read 36,779,881 times
Reputation: 34404
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdelena View Post
When I went to work in the banking industry many years ago I was staggered by the forced unfair political cleanup of the S&L crisis and the people I worked with promised I would be more shocked by the mortgage guidelines being forced by the federal government.

Sure enough it looked like traditional sound underwriting standards were pushed out by the feds and replaced with affirmative action goals but the bankers said we will manage as we are selling the loans to the government and in the secondary market.

Like any unsound strategy the whole thing collapsed and I have no doubt we will repeat again in some variation created by government.
Thank you for saying this. Just goes to prove the seeds of the 2008 financial crisis were sown more than a decade before it happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 05:53 PM
 
2,838 posts, read 3,485,211 times
Reputation: 1406
No, it was less than a decade; the "seeds of the 2008 financial crisis were sown" with Gramm-Leach-Lliley Act of 1999, and harvested with the enactment of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 09:27 AM
 
Location: WA
5,640 posts, read 24,869,103 times
Reputation: 6573
I actually think the seeds of the problems were in the CRA of 1977... this act and aggressive interpretations (and miss-interpretations) created problems in the mortgage industry for decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 10:03 AM
 
2,838 posts, read 3,485,211 times
Reputation: 1406
The CRA was not the problem. There is nothing wrong with government subsidized housing provided it is handled properly. Government programs for low-income housing have existed for decades at the federal, state and municipal levels. Those loans were serviced in-house and not sold as mortgage-backed securities. It was the housing bubble spurred on by the subprime lending made in 2004-2006; which securitized mortgages were traded by the banks on the financial markets that precipitated the crash in 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2014, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Sandy Springs, GA
2,278 posts, read 3,014,017 times
Reputation: 2973
Going to have to agree. FHA loans are not problems in of themselves. With incomes stagnant and housing prices still going up, I think that FHA is a middle-of-the-road solution to encouraging real estate ownership by people who are not part of the top 15%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top