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.
Why are you defending investment bankers? Why do you ignore their actions?
I am no defending the investment bankers...their job is to make money for the shareholders...that is their ONLY job
the fact is that had the government not eased the standards... that made for bad paper (bad mortgages) ...then there would not have been bad packages in the MBS's
the bankers (private, commercial, and even the scary shadow) invest/trade money or securities to do what?..... make money..... the government forced bad loans...those bad loans were packaged as 'sweet deals' and that is the rest of the story
the MBS problem was due to bad paper packages, of loans directed by the government
Why are you defending investment bankers? Why do you ignore their actions?
b/c when your only interested in furthering a political narrative it's all you can do....(not blaming bankers just pointing out the evil government isn't the sole cause of the 08 crisis which seems to be two posters entire thesis)
Poor black people were responsible for the 08 housing crisis and related economic collapse, because the government forced banks to give them mortgages.
Reckless bankers had nothing to do with it.
That’s what I heard from Fox News, so it’s The Truth.
I am no defending the investment bankers...their job is to make money for the shareholders...that is their ONLY job
the fact is that had the government not eased the standards... that made for bad paper (bad mortgages) ...then there would not have been bad packages in the MBS's
the bankers (private, commercial, and even the scary shadow) invest/trade money or securities to do what?..... make money..... the government forced bad loans...those bad loans were packaged as 'sweet deals' and that is the rest of the story
the MBS problem was due to bad paper packages, of loans directed by the government
"the fact is that had the government not eased the standards... that made for bad paper (bad mortgages) ...then there would not have been bad packages in the MBS's"
Your assertion breaks down right there.
Investment banks are free to lend money or provide capital for mortgages to anyone they want. They can either do it directly or through intermediaries. The are perfectly capable of creating there own "bad paper." To make money they turned to subprime mortgages which generated higher income streams. To fill their supply of subprime they both bought subprime from others and invested in and outright bought subprime originators. Even with all that they were running into supply problems with not enough subprime mortgages being available even though the volume of subprime went from under 100 billion to over 600 billion.
No force is necessary for investment banks to pursue want they believe to be a profitable strategies. By the time the bubble burst over 85% of subprime loans were being originated by companies which were not covered by government mandates. No force required.
"the fact is that had the government not eased the standards... that made for bad paper (bad mortgages) ...then there would not have been bad packages in the MBS's"
Your assertion breaks down right there.
Investment banks are free to lend money or provide capital for mortgages to anyone they want. They can either do it directly or through intermediaries. The are perfectly capable of creating there own "bad paper." To make money they turned to subprime mortgages which generated higher income streams. To fill their supply of subprime they both bought subprime from others and invested in and outright bought subprime originators. Even with all that they were running into supply problems with not enough subprime mortgages being available even though the volume of subprime went from under 100 billion to over 600 billion.
No force is necessary for investment banks to pursue want they believe to be a profitable strategies. By the time the bubble burst over 85% of subprime loans were being originated by companies which were not covered by government mandates. No force required.
Enter synthetic CDOs and a piece of the whole derivative angle that none of these guys can seem to understand. You can get exposure on same subprime debt several times over without even having to own it. Oh btw- its unregulated and not subject to any capital requirements or reporting; something Dodd-Frank addresses but posters will never understand nor want to consider.
b/c when your only interested in furthering a political narrative it's all you can do....(not blaming bankers just pointing out the evil government isn't the sole cause of the 08 crisis which seems to be two posters entire thesis)
The problem with the political narrative which is also pushed by people in positions of power is that derivatives remain a ticking time bomb waiting for the next crisis. Some of the limited attempts to protect the economy from them have already been rolled back in prior partial repeals of Dodd-Frank.
I can understand some of the objections to government housing policy, but if the issue is preventing a similar financial crisis as 2008 then focusing on government affordable housing initiatives is misguided and disingenuous by those who know better.
I do find it interesting that the investment banks who hated competing against the GSEs and therefore were constantly harping on the dangers of the GSEs and lobbying Congress to reign them in, ended up creating a huge crisis. The end result of which is that the GSEs own more the mortgage securitization market than they were likely ever to have achieved on their own.
Loans that were rarely made previously. Keep ignoring that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metsfan53
2 originations of cra subprime loans by cra regulated lenders and thier affiliates or contract labor as you call it accounted for 6% of market share in total
Keep making things up
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metsfan53
3 secondary purchase of subprime cra loans that you reference above by cra regulated institutions from non regulated lenders accounted for 2 percent of the secondary market.
Keep making things up
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metsfan53
So not quite the epidemic then huh? As you still fail to understand the appetite and volume that existed at Non despitory institutions not bound by cra, though origination, the secondary market, and securitization. But keep thinking you’ve got some special insight here
Keep making things up and deflecting.
Fact - The government's Fannie Mae Foundation singled out one bank in particular as the role model for all other banks in America in terms of its commitment to CRA lending: Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, had committed to $600 billion in low-income or "subprime" loans as of 2003. Today, Countrywide is essentially bankrupted and has been merged with Bank of America.
A role model? hahahaha Anyone who was paying attention and had an IQ over 10 would know they would go under. History has taught us that. Well it has taught some of us. The rest deflect and ignore.
Keep ignoring that
Fact - In 1989 1 out of every 240 mortgages was little to no money down while in 2007 it was 80 in 240. Explain how the free market does that. Keep ignoring that.
Keep babbling while deflecting, it's really laughable how you don't have the courage to address what I said. Granted it would expose you as someone who isnt good at understanding the cause of the crash.
You are just stating your belief and can provide zero documentation to back up your belief.
You made this up. I've provided plenty of proof and you haven't once refuted it. Not once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
I have posted data and quotes from people in the industry who have stated what they were doing and why.
And? So? Why in the world does it matter the reasons whypeople in the industry did unless you're going to be truthful and point out they did something the industry didn't do before. Which was lower standards and make loans to a plethora of people they normally wouldn't make loans to. But you'll ignore that. You wont discuss that since it exposes you as someone who doesn't understand the cause of the crash.
Government forced lenders to make bad loans that they rarely made. That's it That's the cause and you haven't done one thing, not one, to disprove that.
Keep making things up and deflecting, it's good for a laugh. Instead of memorizing what boobus told you, why don't you think? Can you try that at least?
Subprime didn't start in the 2000s. Its the scale that changed. In 2000 subprime was around 100 billion representing 10% of the market, by the mid 2000s subprime was over 600 billion and over 25% of the market. That growth was driven by the investment banks. Prior to the 2000s the investment banks were not demanding that volume of subprime. The investment banks were demanding the growth because they needed a supply for CDOs; CDOs which also had never been sold in anywhere near the volumes they were in the 2000s.
Glad that you admit the market was saturated with horrible loans. You do understand that without all those horrible loans that were already made anything that happens after that is a symptom?
96% of top subprime lenders were not bound by regulations you reference no natter how many times you claim the law was the cause. Please explain that? Pointing out Angelo Mozilla as an exception does not negate this fact.
Again you have no proof, none whatsoever to back up your claim to this 96 percent garbage when I have already proved that silly statement false. You just made it up and haven't countered any facts that I've brought up. None.
Keep deflecting.
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.
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.
