Here's Your Deregulation You Peons

[editec]

Once again, failing to hold the consumers accountable for their uninformed decisions.

No, I am not.

I quite agree with you that some people were simply GAMING the system.

I have pointed that out repeatedly and despite that, you keep denying that I have acknowledged that fact. I'll leave it to you to explain why you keep trying to put words into my mouth.

However, had the rating companies been doing their jobs, instead of pandering to their clients (and being paid handsomely to LIE for them) the BANKS would NOT gave lent money to foolish and GAMING home buyers, because they could NOT have passed off their crappy risks to the Fannie Mae because no BOND PURCHSERS would have bought their FANNIE MAE'S bonds, and NOBODY could have sold dereivatives on those bonds, either.

Do you NOT understand the chain of events that lead to this situation?

Apparently you do NOT.

The banks would be fine right now, had the borrowers known what it was they were signing. Of course, signing that mortgage and securing the loan was more important to most people than being informed about whether or not it would ultimately be a good decision in the first place.

Are you suggesting that the banks did not KNOW that "No income verification, NO assets verification" (NINA) loans carried a high degree of risk with them?

I mean, seriously, do you NOT think that banks should have understood that lending money to people with no known incomes or net worths was a SOUND and CONSERVATIVE BANKING PRACTICE?!

So your answer is that government should do the job that consumers should have done themselves.

No, per usual, Paul, you are making up my postion to argue points I do not make.

The RANTINGS COMPANIES should have been doing their jobs and then NONE of those NINA loans COULD have happened.

The failure, the primary failure was in the PRIVATE SECTOR...most especially in the THE RATINGS AGENCIES.

Just one more way the citizens of this country become even more stupid and apathetic.

True...and the citizens who were stupid and apathetic were who, exactly?

The BANKS AND RANTING AGENCIES AND BOND BUYERS AND DERRIVATIVE BUYERS AND SELLERS WHO SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER than to buy such risky financing instruments.

After all, they were the finacing professionals, were they not?

Now consider this...

Those people who actually WERE gaming the system, thse consumers who the finance professionals allowed to buy homes with NINA mortgages were actually SMARTER than the fiance professionals.

After all, they can just WALK AWAY from the homes, and who really gets hurt?

The BANKS and anyone who bought their bonds or derivitives, and of course, the public that these pansies financeiers are now demanding BAIL THEM OUT.

So YES, I hold the banking iindustry FAR MORE accountable than I do the people who played it for the selfish, short sighted fools they obviously were.

 

[WillowTree]

Once again, failing to hold the consumers accountable for their uninformed decisions.

No, I am not. I quite agree with you that some people were simply GAMING the system. I have pointed that out repeatedly and despite that, people like you keep denying that I have acknopwledged that fact.

However, had the rating companies been doing their jobs, instead of pandering to their clients (and being paid handsomely do to so) the BANKS would NOT gave lent money to foolish home buyers because they could NOT have passed off their crappy risks to the Fannie Mae because no BOND PURCHSERS would have bought their bonds.

Do you understand the chain of events that lead to this situation?

Apparently you do NOT.



Are you suggesting that the banks did not KNOW that "no income verification, NO assets verification" loans carried a high degree of risk with them?

I means seriously, do you NOT think that banks should have understood that?



No my answer is that the RANTINGS COMPANIES should have been doing their jobs and then NONE of the COUILD have happened.

The failure, the primary failure was in the PRIVATE SECTOR...THE RATINGS AGENCIES.



True...and the citizens who were stupid and apathetic were who?

The BANKS AND RANTING AGENCIES AND BOND BUERS AND DERRIVATIVE BYERS AND SELLERS WHO SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.

After all, they were the finacing professionals, were they not?

Now consider this...

Those ppeople who WERE gaming the system, the consumers who the fiancie professionals allowed to buy homes with NINA mortgages were actually SMARTER than the fiance professionals.

They can just WALK AWAYS from the homes, and who gets hurt?

The finance professionals and BOND BUYERS who counted on the RATINGS COMPANIES to keep them informed aobut the RISKS associated with those loans.

So YES, I hold the banking iindustry FAR MORE accountable than I do the people who played it for the fools they were.

be very clear now , and honest if you will. After studying the events of the last couple of decades, I know perfectly well that there was a "mandate" to provide low income and no income borrowers with loans to buy homes they could ill afford. Had any bank refused to participate they would have been branded rascist! It's just that simple. We have all been scammed. Get over it. Get used to it. And, hope like hell that the Bohener plan prevails.

 

[Paulie]

The banks would be fine right now, had the borrowers known what it was they were signing.

The banks would have been very cranky if that were the case because the elaborate Ponzi scheme that they created would not have worked because the marks wouldn't have been duped.

Of course, signing that mortgage and securing the loan was more important to most people than being informed about whether or not it would ultimately be a good decision in the first place.

Of course getting the mark to sign so that the bonuses could be paid was more important than making sure repayment was likely.

I don't disagree with you at all. It's still no excuse. The borrowers should have been just a little bit smarter than the bankers.

I've said it before. It's simple math. Here's what you make, here's the absolute most that you can afford to spend.

When all else fails, you always fall back on the old addage "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is". At which point, you should be questioning EVERYTHING.

The banks were only as greedy as the borrowers allowed them to be.

 

[Ravi]

I know perfectly well that there was a "mandate" to provide low income and no income borrowers with loans to buy homes they could ill afford

Show me.

And then show me the statistics on who defaulted on what, and the amount of $ that each group defaulted on.

 

[WillowTree]

Show me.

And then show me the statistics on who defaulted on what, and the amount of $ that each group defaulted on.

nope, not running around your bush,, if you dispute that you show us.

 

[Ravi]

nope, not running around your bush,, if you dispute that you show us.

I figured you could not. It's easy to make claims on a message board and not back them up, isn't it.

Racist bullshit is more than likely all you have.

 

[editec]

He who makes an assetion is, when one is discussing issues with people who understand logical arguments, the person who is expected to support that assertion, Willow.

The assertion being made is that the laws against REDLINING (laws that have been with us for over 30 years) are causing the problem NOW.

Odd that such a law could so dramatically efffect this market so many decades after it went into effect, isn't it?

So. logically speaking, it falls upon those of you making this claim to show us that it is true.

Given that the world's economic experts claim the problem has nothing to dow that law, and can show those of you intelligent enough to understand their arguments that other things caused this problem, I think it's up to you to show us why we should believe you rather than them..

 

[cbi0090]

Why is no one talkinig about how it was thought to be such a great thing that the banks were providing means to so many to buy a home, through their financial wizardry? Let's face it, the banks should have known better. 2 + 2 still equals 4, and they, of all people, knew the details and the mechanisms well enough to have seen this coming. But, on the other hand, they were greatly encouraged and made out to be hero's by those in government who saw their actions as a great new deal and getting people (voters) into homes, regardless of their income.
In 2005 a bill was offered to curb this nonsense was made and squashed because everyone wanted to continue to see the good times roll. Not unlike the DotCom times.
Everyone is to blame. How many of you re-financed your home over the last 12 years? More than once? Did your debt go down? Consumers should also have known better. I can't tell you how many monster homes I've visited, related to hurricane damage, only to walk in to a nearly empty house. They had this huge home and could barely afford to furnish it. Rooms would have nothing but boxes in them. It was usually just a couple. Why would two people need 5 bedrooms?
Everyone went insane and it was right in front of all our noses.

 

[Care4all]

I don't disagree with you at all. It's still no excuse. The borrowers should have been just a little bit smarter than the bankers.

I've said it before. It's simple math. Here's what you make, here's the absolute most that you can afford to spend.

When all else fails, you always fall back on the old addage "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is". At which point, you should be questioning EVERYTHING.

The banks were only as greedy as the borrowers allowed them to be.

paul, what if they did precisely that...?

they COULD afford the mortgages they took out, and they paid the mortgages they took out for 3 or more years during the 4%-7% fixed rate of the adjustable mortgage...they were TOLD by ALL banks and ALL real estate agents that they WOULD be able to get a fixed rate conventional mortgage when the Adjustable rate became a variable rate tied in with this or that fund....

So, this talk about them getting in to a mortgage they could not afford is blatently wrong....

And yes, they DID NOT UNDERSTAND that there was any possibility of them NOT being able to refinance in to a Conventional mortgage LIKE THEY WERE TOLD....

I do not blame them what so ever for this...but i blame the financial and real estate businesses for not DISCLOSING this info to where it was understandable to the average poor joe that has never borrowed from a bank in their lives.....?

I don't know if you have ever watched House Hunters on TV but i witnessed mortgage broker and real estate agents, one right after the other, selling these young, white, first time homeowner couples in to a subprime mortgage....2 of them usually, one for the 20% down and one for the 80% rest to avoid the PMI....I SAW THIS, with my own eyes and the "story" was ALWAYS the same told to the couples, in 3 years or 5 years when these mortgages become adjustable you can refinance in to a fixed rate Conventional mortgage and by that time have enough equity in to your home that you can avoid the PMI payments...I witnessed it Paul....as i screamed at the tv set, hoping the couples would hear me....DON'T DO IT, DON'T DO IT!

How many of these foreclosures and for how much money involved is revolved around the first time home buyer who could have been duped or the less ignorant Americans that took out equity line of credits that were adjustable or 2nd mortgages that were adjustable?

And yes, i believe many that were smart enough and informed enough that took out the home equity or 2nd mortgage....but these people do not fall in to the same category as the first time home buyer who was totally ignorant on the banking process and only had their real estate agent and mortgage broker to explain and disclose the REAL DEAL.....i still believe they were victims of the Perps...like an old lady being scammed out of her money over the phone, a victim of a scam....by a predator.

Just as we are being scammed right now, in to bailing out the crooks with our Trillion Dollars....the devil is in the details and masked so it can't be readily seen....is ALL of America just dumb? or are we being lead astray and told what they want us to believe?

 

[Shattered]

paul, what if they did precisely that...?

they COULD afford the mortgages they took out, and they paid the mortgages they took out for 3 or more years during the 4%-7% fixed rate of the adjustable mortgage...they were TOLD by ALL banks and ALL real estate agents that they WOULD be able to get a fixed rate conventional mortgage when the Adjustable rate became a variable rate tied in with this or that fund....

So, this talk about them getting in to a mortgage they could not afford is blatently wrong....

And yes, they DID NOT UNDERSTAND that there was any possibility of them NOT being able to refinance in to a Conventional mortgage LIKE THEY WERE TOLD....

I do not blame them what so ever for this...but i blame the financial and real estate businesses for not DISCLOSING this info to where it was understandable to the average poor joe that has never borrowed from a bank in their lives.....?

I don't know if you have ever watched House Hunters on TV but i witnessed mortgage broker and real estate agents, one right after the other, selling these young, white, first time homeowner couples in to a subprime mortgage....2 of them usually, one for the 20% down and one for the 80% rest to avoid the PMI....I SAW THIS, with my own eyes and the "story" was ALWAYS the same told to the couples, in 3 years or 5 years when these mortgages become adjustable you can refinance in to a fixed rate Conventional mortgage and by that time have enough equity in to your home that you can avoid the PMI payments...I witnessed it Paul....as i screamed at the tv set, hoping the couples would hear me....DON'T DO IT, DON'T DO IT!

How many of these foreclosures and for how much money involved is revolved around the first time home buyer who could have been duped or the less ignorant Americans that took out equity line of credits that were adjustable or 2nd mortgages that were adjustable?

And yes, i believe many that were smart enough and informed enough that took out the home equity or 2nd mortgage....but these people do not fall in to the same category as the first time home buyer who was totally ignorant on the banking process and only had their real estate agent and mortgage broker to explain and disclose the REAL DEAL.....i still believe they were victims of the Perps...like an old lady being scammed out of her money over the phone, a victim of a scam....by a predator.

Just as we are being scammed right now, in to bailing out the crooks with our Trillion Dollars....the devil is in the details and masked so it can't be readily seen....is ALL of America just dumb? or are we being lead astray and told what they want us to believe?

Care..everybody is a "first time" homeowner at some point in their lives.. Are you saying that every one of them was scammed? Or that just certain people were targeted? I bought my first home only about 4 years ago (apparently when the picking was high by the lenders). I didn't rely on my real estate agent, or my mortgage broker to do my homework for me and tell ME what I should do. I got a list of what my options were, researched them on my own, made my own decision, went to my mortgage broker about 2 weeks before the closing, got an entire set of ALL closing documents and forms, and read each and every one of them (fine print included). By the time my closing came around, I could tell you what each of those papers said, and I knew EXACTLY what I was signing my name to.

Anything less is sheer lazines on the part of the buyer, since this is a 30-ish year contract you're signing, and likely affects your entire life.

 

[WillowTree]

I figured you could not. It's easy to make claims on a message board and not back them up, isn't it.

Racist bullshit is more than likely all you have.

could not? or don't care to? there are probably 20 or more posts already in place, if you have missed them you have some catching up to do.

 

[WillowTree]

He who makes an assetion is, when one is discussing issues with people who understand logical arguments, the person who is expected to support that assertion, Willow.

The assertion being made is that the laws against REDLINING (laws that have been with us for over 30 years) are causing the problem NOW.

Odd that such a law could so dramatically efffect this market so many decades after it went into effect, isn't it?

So. logically speaking, it falls upon those of you making this claim to show us that it is true.

Given that the world's economic experts claim the problem has nothing to dow that law, and can show those of you intelligent enough to understand their arguments that other things caused this problem, I think it's up to you to show us why we should believe you rather than them..

my assertions have already been proven and posted for days and days and days now. it's there if you care to read it, if not, then prove me wrong with your own postings.

 

[WillowTree]

Why is no one talkinig about how it was thought to be such a great thing that the banks were providing means to so many to buy a home, through their financial wizardry? Let's face it, the banks should have known better. 2 + 2 still equals 4, and they, of all people, knew the details and the mechanisms well enough to have seen this coming. But, on the other hand, they were greatly encouraged and made out to be hero's by those in government who saw their actions as a great new deal and getting people (voters) into homes, regardless of their income.
In 2005 a bill was offered to curb this nonsense was made and squashed because everyone wanted to continue to see the good times roll. Not unlike the DotCom times.
Everyone is to blame. How many of you re-financed your home over the last 12 years? More than once? Did your debt go down? Consumers should also have known better. I can't tell you how many monster homes I've visited, related to hurricane damage, only to walk in to a nearly empty house. They had this huge home and could barely afford to furnish it. Rooms would have nothing but boxes in them. It was usually just a couple. Why would two people need 5 bedrooms?
Everyone went insane and it was right in front of all our noses.

can you spell mandate?

 

[Ravi]

could not? or don't care to? there are probably 20 or more posts already in place, if you have missed them you have some catching up to do.

No, it hasn't. So you are nothing more than a liar. That's what I figured.

 

[WillowTree]

No, it hasn't. So you are nothing more than a liar. That's what I figured.

but then you ain't got much to figure with, so you're forgiven..

 

[editec]

Once again, failing to hold the consumers accountable for their uninformed decisions.

Oh, I guess I see the problem now.

You have a severe reading comprehension problem.

I say one thing, you read into it exactly the opposite of what I said.

be very clear now , and honest if you will. After studying the events of the last couple of decades, I know perfectly well that there was a "mandate" to provide low income and no income borrowers with loans to buy homes they could ill afford. Had any bank refused to participate they would have been branded rascist! It's just that simple. We have all been scammed. Get over it. Get used to it. And, hope like hell that the Bohener plan prevails.

Sorry, but that fish won't swim, dude.

If that were the case this problem would have manifested decades ago when the law first went into effect, and the defaulting homes would ONLY be in marginal neighborhoods.

The facts show us where these defaulting loans are happening, and those pesky facts entirely disprove you theory about that law being the father of this mess completely, Paul.

The vast majority of defaults are NOT happening in poor neighbohoods, (which are the places that law effects) but rather in solidly middle and upper middle class neighborhoods where that law was never applied becuase it never needed to be applied.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why is no one talkinig about how it was thought to be such a great thing that the banks were providing means to so many to buy a home, through their financial wizardry?...

Some, actually a lot of people, do think that it is a good thing to help others.

Capital, an asset that needs to be paid back, is a great way to help anyone. I would much prefer that the rest of you give me a loan instead of a gift if I am down on my luck. American pride and all... Used wisely, especially for a hard asset like a home or business, capital can help to make a poor man middle class, a middle class man wealthy and a wealthy man rich.

The problem we have is that profits and charity (bridging an economic gap using a pool of money such as taxes or gifts) don't mix.

-Joe

 

[editec]

Why is no one talkinig about how it was thought to be such a great thing that the banks were providing means to so many to buy a home, through their financial wizardry? Let's face it, the banks should have known better. 2 + 2 still equals 4, and they, of all people, knew the details and the mechanisms well enough to have seen this coming. But, on the other hand, they were greatly encouraged and made out to be hero's by those in government who saw their actions as a great new deal and getting people (voters) into homes, regardless of their income.
In 2005 a bill was offered to curb this nonsense was made and squashed because everyone wanted to continue to see the good times roll. Not unlike the DotCom times.
Everyone is to blame. How many of you re-financed your home over the last 12 years? More than once? Did your debt go down? Consumers should also have known better. I can't tell you how many monster homes I've visited, related to hurricane damage, only to walk in to a nearly empty house. They had this huge home and could barely afford to furnish it. Rooms would have nothing but boxes in them. It was usually just a couple. Why would two people need 5 bedrooms?
Everyone went insane and it was right in front of all our noses.

Well that's the problem with most bubbles, isnt it?

The people involved go nuts with greed and often (as in this case) we ALL end up suffering when the bubble bursts.

 

[editec]

Some, actually a lot of people, do think that it is a good thing to help others.

Capital, an asset that needs to be paid back, is a great way to help anyone. I would much prefer that the rest of you give me a loan instead of a gift if I am down on my luck. American pride and all... Used wisely, especially for a hard asset like a home or business, capital can help to make a poor man middle class, a middle class man wealthy and a wealthy man rich.

The problem we have is that profits and charity (bridging an economic gap using a pool of money such as taxes or gifts) don't mix.

-Joe

Given that the people who are walking away from those homes or who are trying to stay in them but connot because the VAR's are now too high weren't exactly being given gifts.

Not a single bank which wriote those NINA VARS was being charitable.

they were being GREEDY, in fact, and as a consequence of their greed they were accepting very risky paper and hoping THE BAND (real the continuation of escalating RE prices) wouldn't stop playing.

This bubble is just like all the others in that respect, Joe...BUSINESSMEN with good sense are driven out of the market by BUSINESSMEN whose GREED motivated them to take risks that are NOT sensible.

 

[WillowTree]

Oh, I guess I see the problem now.

You have a severe reading comprehension problem.

I say one thing, you read into it exactly the opposite of what I said.








Sorry, but that fish won't swim, dude.

If that were the case this problem would have manifested decades ago when the law first went into effect, and the defaulting homes would ONLY be in marginal neighborhoods.

The facts show us where these defaulting loans are happening, and those pesky facts entirely disprove you theory about that law being the father of this mess completely, Paul.

The vast majority of defaults are NOT happening in poor neighbohoods, (which are the places that law effects) but rather in solidly middle and upper middle class neighborhoods where that law was never applied becuase it never needed to be applied.

Right! that's why the corrupt body of ACORN are so eager to reach in and grab what they can.. I think though their asses have been cut outta the deal. but then if what you say is true they didn't need in the deal did they?