Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We're talking about the accounting well before the crash.
The accounting fraud that enriched Franklin Raines and other Dem insiders.
ok, but which part of someone getting enriched didn't cause market-wide price collapse did you not understand?
Ok, but which part of "I never claimed that", do you not understand?
What I am saying is what you DID claim, is irrelevant as to the conversation about the causes of Great Recession.
It did happen on W's watch. No doubt no diggity.Of course we know that. Aren't they pathetic?
nobody said it was the sole cause.
your statement that accounting is not accounting is absurd.
If my statement was that "accounting is not accounting' then yes it would be absurd.
but my statement was actually that "accounting is not risk management and does not set securities valuations"
Risk management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hedging and Pricing of Real Estate Securities under Market Incompleteness
From your own link:
"Risk management is the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks"
And how then is risk management supposed to fulfill it's purpose if the accounting numbers are incorrect and they are therefore acting on bad information, with the true picture obscured due to fraudulent accounting.
Of course we know that. Aren't they pathetic?
I've actually seen some tards on this forum retroactively blame Obama for the 2008 crash. That's when I started calling them goldfish.Of course we know that. Aren't they pathetic?
Lets play a keep-em-honest experiment:
Mentally switch the name of the person who was in White House 2001-2009 from Bush to Obama.
Ready? Ok who's fault was 2008 Great Recession...GO!
The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, for one.Clinton was just as responsible, for the regulatory framework that lead to the housing boom and dotcom crash.
Clinton, the Lame Duck, dogged by impeachment proceedings over the Lewinsky Scandal, signed the legislation which originated in the Republican House and Senate, into law. But make no mistake - this was a Republican bill.
Bush made it a goal to make every American a home owner. He pushed it hard.
Clinton, the Lame Duck, dogged by impeachment proceedings over the Lewinsky Scandal, signed the legislation which originated in the Republican House and Senate, into law.
Which legislation is that?
Your continued obliviousness to reality is noted...When they finally did, 25%, their halved share of the market. GOP finally got them involved in their scam.As I previously stated primary view of economists is that it was general market exuberance combined with poor risk management.
Not related to the repeal of parts of Glass-Steagall?
I don't think you understand that government regulation and GSE are part of the general market.
It takes politico right wingers specifically to claim that the crash stemmed from poor accounting at GSE'sThe poor accounting allowed corrupt Dems at the GSEs to get bonuses they did not deserve.
Did the GSEs add to the bubble by buying a lot of the crappy mortgages?
Silly, even if what you claim is true, democrat bonuses did not cause the real estate collapse.
And like I said GSEs are part of the general market, but for their part they were late to the sub-prime securities party compared to private institutions. In 2003 Bush admin has even specifically criticized them for it.
If your securitized holdings go from Tripple A to Junk overnight then no amount of proper accounting could have saved you and GSE's were always highly leveraged and will continue to be so, backed by the good faith in US of A.
democrat bonuses did not cause the real estate collapse.
Didn't say they caused the collapse.
The poor accounting you mentioned allowed Dem insiders to commit fraud without consequence.
And like I said GSEs are part of the general market, but for their part they were late to the sub-prime securities party compared to private institutions.
When they got to the party, did they add to the bubble? A little? A lot?
When they finally did, 25%
They bought 25% of the crappy mortgages? Dollar wise, how much?
GOP finally got them involved in their scam.
Did they pass a law? Link?
How did the minority Republican party prevent Obama from raising taxes?I just don't understand how this can be said, when Barney Franks, even in his famous video on Fannie and Freddie, was in the MINORITY, in the House....there was NOTHING at all that Barney could stop Republicans from doing, if they proposed to do it....Barney Frank & his ilkOf course we know that. Aren't they pathetic?
Lets play a keep-em-honest experiment:
Mentally switch the name of the person who was in White House 2001-2009 from Bush to Obama.
Ready? Ok who's fault was 2008 Great Recession...GO!
So how could Barney Frank and his ilk, in the minority, do any thing at all to affect any thing at all in this mess?
nobody said it was the sole cause.
your statement that accounting is not accounting is absurd.
If my statement was that "accounting is not accounting' then yes it would be absurd.
but my statement was actually that "accounting is not risk management and does not set securities valuations"
Risk management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hedging and Pricing of Real Estate Securities under Market Incompleteness
From your own link:
"Risk management is the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks"
And how then is risk management supposed to fulfill it's purpose if the accounting numbers are incorrect and they are therefore acting on bad information, with the true picture obscured due to fraudulent accounting.
....ok lets take it real slow:
Estimators: Asset 1 is worth $1
Estimators: Asset 2 is worth $2
Accounting: Our assets are worth $3
Risk Management: What is our strategy to handle asset value loss of $1?
Accounting does not set asset valuations, but merely accounts them as givens - get it?
Risk Management also doesn't set the valuations but has to do with being able to deal with the losses, driving decisions on taking on risk and leverage.
nobody said it was the sole cause.
your statement that accounting is not accounting is absurd.
If my statement was that "accounting is not accounting' then yes it would be absurd.
but my statement was actually that "accounting is not risk management and does not set securities valuations"
Risk management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hedging and Pricing of Real Estate Securities under Market Incompleteness
From your own link:
"Risk management is the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks"
And how then is risk management supposed to fulfill it's purpose if the accounting numbers are incorrect and they are therefore acting on bad information, with the true picture obscured due to fraudulent accounting.
....ok lets take it real slow:
Estimators: Asset 1 is worth $1
Estimators: Asset 2 is worth $2
Accounting: Our assets are worth $3
Risk Management: What is our strategy to handle asset value loss of $1?
Accounting does not set asset valuations, but merely accounts them as givens - get it?
Risk Management also doesn't set the valuations but has to do with being able to deal with the losses, driving decisions on taking on risk and leverage.
Give me a break with your we'll take it real slow, dumbass.
And again from your own words, and let's take it real slow: If risk management doesn't know what the actual numbers are they do not know what the possible losses will be.
here's some more information that would, to any logical person, further support the importance of accounting, not only in general, but as pertaining to this specific situation:
"On December 15, the SEC’s chief accountant, Donald Nicolaisen released the agency’s findings; a scathing indictment of Fannie Mae. It concluded, “during the period under our review, from 2001 to mid-2004, Fannie Mae’s accounting practices did not comply in material respects with the accounting requirements.” According to eyewitnesses Franklin Raines looked stricken at the meeting in which Mr. Nicolaisen released the findings. He tried to defend his actions, and his representatives argued that the business was too complicated to account for with any exactness. To this, Mr. Nicolaisen’s response was, “Many companies out there get it right,” and he held up a sheet of paper. He told the Fannie team, if the four corners of the sheet represented what was possible under legal accounting rules, and the center was perfect compliance, “you weren’t even on the page.”"
yeah, the SEC didn't think the accounting was important either. ::eyeroll::
you are defending a ridiculous position.
The accounting scandals in the GSEs opened the door to Wall Street storming into the secondary market.
The Stock Market peaked in Oct 2007 (Under Bush) and Crashed in 2008(under Obama)....do the math.
nobody said it was the sole cause.
your statement that accounting is not accounting is absurd.
If my statement was that "accounting is not accounting' then yes it would be absurd.
but my statement was actually that "accounting is not risk management and does not set securities valuations"
Risk management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hedging and Pricing of Real Estate Securities under Market Incompleteness
From your own link:
"Risk management is the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks"
And how then is risk management supposed to fulfill it's purpose if the accounting numbers are incorrect and they are therefore acting on bad information, with the true picture obscured due to fraudulent accounting.
....ok lets take it real slow:
Estimators: Asset 1 is worth $1
Estimators: Asset 2 is worth $2
Accounting: Our assets are worth $3
Risk Management: What is our strategy to handle asset value loss of $1?
Accounting does not set asset valuations, but merely accounts them as givens - get it?
Risk Management also doesn't set the valuations but has to do with being able to deal with the losses, driving decisions on taking on risk and leverage.
Give me a break with your we'll take it real slow, dumbass.
And again from your own words, and let's take it real slow: If risk management doesn't know what the actual numbers are they do not know what the possible losses will be.
here's some more information that would, to any logical person, further support the importance of accounting, not only in general, but as pertaining to this specific situation:
"On December 15, the SEC’s chief accountant, Donald Nicolaisen released the agency’s findings; a scathing indictment of Fannie Mae. It concluded, “during the period under our review, from 2001 to mid-2004, Fannie Mae’s accounting practices did not comply in material respects with the accounting requirements.” According to eyewitnesses Franklin Raines looked stricken at the meeting in which Mr. Nicolaisen released the findings. He tried to defend his actions, and his representatives argued that the business was too complicated to account for with any exactness. To this, Mr. Nicolaisen’s response was, “Many companies out there get it right,” and he held up a sheet of paper. He told the Fannie team, if the four corners of the sheet represented what was possible under legal accounting rules, and the center was perfect compliance, “you weren’t even on the page.”"
yeah, the SEC didn't think the accounting was important either. ::eyeroll::
you are defending a ridiculous position.
I did give you a break and already explained exactly WHY GSE's accounting is not the culprit, but your tiny little head is simply not understanding what accounting is and what it is not.
It is not ACCOUNTING that rated sub-prime backed securities as tripple-A grade assets.
It is not the FM's accounting in 2001 to mid-2004 that caused the real estate to lose value in 2007 and foreclosures to skyrocket as a result of more and more houses ending up under-water putting the whole over-leveraged financial system at a risk of collapse.
Investors lost trust in the GSEs and turned to Wall Street instead.The accounting scandals in the GSEs opened the door to Wall Street storming into the secondary market.
How?
And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many, low income families to make the high down payment.
And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund.
This will use money, taxpayers' money to help a qualified, low income buyer make a downpayment. And that's important.
Secondly, there is a lack of affordable housing in certain neighborhoods. Too many neighborhoods, especially in inner city America, lack affordable housing units. How can you promote homeownership if people can't afford a home?
And so what I've done is propose what we call a Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, to encourage the development of affordable housing in neighborhoods where housing is scarce. (Applause.)
A third major barrier is the complexity and difficulty of the home buying process. There's a lot of fine print on these forms. And it bothers people, it makes them nervous. And so therefore, what Mel has agreed to do, and Alphonso Jackson has agreed to do is to streamline the process, make the rules simpler, so everybody understands what they are -- makes the closing much less complicated.
We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home. We can change the print, and we've got to.
That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge.
The Commission is amending Rule 15c3-12 (the “net capital rule”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) to establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing net capital for certain broker-dealers.
Investors lost trust in the GSEs and turned to Wall Street instead.The accounting scandals in the GSEs opened the door to Wall Street storming into the secondary market.
How?
