Watched "The Big Short" housing bubble movie

[The Rabbi]

The thing you rubes utterly fail to understand is that if this was just a subprime mortgage problem, the crisis would have been much smaller.

It was massively amplified by unregulated derivatives like the CDS I discussed earlier.

And it was global.

These two facts chop the legs, arms, and head off your argument it had something to do with negroes.

Also, you ignore all those For Sale signs in your own lily white neighborhoods. "I had no idea Biff was a negro!"

The middle class was the bulk of the bubble. After all, you can loan a lot more money to someone in the middle class than you can to someone in poverty. And therefore you can get more of that $70 trillion into borrowers' hands and make more fees.

You fools have no clue how the financial system works.

So black people arent part of the middle class?

 

[g5000]

Dick Fuld took pains to buy up his own supply chain of mortgage brokers to ensure his derivatives machine would be fed.

You morons have no clue about what the causes of the collapse were. You are parroting a meme created on Fox News about two weeks after the collapse of Lehman Brothers by people who had no idea what had happened.

You're a loonbat. Fox has nothing to do with how govt was coercing banks into sub prime.

Fox was blaming the CRA from the get-go. That's the propaganda organ you are parroting. A tired and thoroughly bogus story told to you. "It was them damn negroes!"

 

[g5000]

Bear Stearns? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

Lehman Brothers? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

Goldman Sachs? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

Merrill Lynch? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

JP Morgan? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.


Landsbanki? Let's blame the negroes of Iceland!

Yes but the banks that originated the mortgages that were in the pools purchased by them were subject to CRA.
You fail, piss guzzler.

Wrong. Like I just said, Lehman Brothers owned their own supply chain of brokers.

The increase in subprimes was all about greed.

Wrong. Part for whole fallacy.
Fannie and Freddie also set criteria for prime and therefore for sub-prime. And they watered those criteria down.

As I said earlier, Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window in order to generate more loans upon which to build their CDOs. The GSEs were followers, not leaders.

They were bit players on the global stage. Their US market share shrank and shrank as the bubble grew.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bear Stearns? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

Lehman Brothers? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

Goldman Sachs? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

Merrill Lynch? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

JP Morgan? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.


Landsbanki? Let's blame the negroes of Iceland!

Yes but the banks that originated the mortgages that were in the pools purchased by them were subject to CRA.
You fail, piss guzzler.

Wrong. Like I just said, Lehman Brothers owned their own supply chain of brokers.

The increase in subprimes was all about greed.

Wrong. Part for whole fallacy.
Fannie and Freddie also set criteria for prime and therefore for sub-prime. And they watered those criteria down.

As I said earlier, Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window in order to generate more loans upon which to build their CDOs. The GSEs were followers, not leaders.

They were bit players on the global stage.

Wrong.
The GSEs set criteria for what was prime. Ergo they set criteria for sub prime. They did not throw underwting laws out the window. They still did underwriting, albeit under very different standards. Yes, they wanted more loan volume. That's how you make money in the mortgage business, by generating loan volume. And with rising home prices and rising incomes they felt they could take more risk.
The Fed's aritifcially low rates made doing that business and spinning off the derivatives incredibly profitable. People respond to incentives and the incentives were to do those things.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bear Stearns? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

Lehman Brothers? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

Goldman Sachs? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

Merrill Lynch? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.

JP Morgan? Nope. Not subject to the CRA.


Landsbanki? Let's blame the negroes of Iceland!

Yes but the banks that originated the mortgages that were in the pools purchased by them were subject to CRA.
You fail, piss guzzler.

Wrong. Like I just said, Lehman Brothers owned their own supply chain of brokers.

The increase in subprimes was all about greed.

Wrong. Part for whole fallacy.
Fannie and Freddie also set criteria for prime and therefore for sub-prime. And they watered those criteria down.

As I said earlier, Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window in order to generate more loans upon which to build their CDOs. The GSEs were followers, not leaders.

They were bit players on the global stage. Their US market share shrank and shrank as the bubble grew.

They were still the big dogs in the business, largely because of the US guarantee, which they denied.

 

[g5000]

80 percent of the borrowers who took Pick-A-Payment loans during the bubble only made the minimum allowed payment. In fact, it was a Wachovia internal document about how hard they were pushing Pick-A-Payment loans I stumbled upon in 2006 which alerted me to the enormity of the problem. My immediate reaction was to send an email to a reporter I knew at a large media outlet.

She ignored it. Too bad. She would have broken the story long before the collapse.

I was interviewed by a small newspaper, and I explained the math. Everyone called me nuts. They weren't laughing later, though.

A Pick-A-Payment loan has four payment options to choose from each month. If you make the highest payment, you will pay off your mortgage in 15 years. If you make the second highest payment, you will pay off in 30 years. If you make the third highest payment, you are only paying the interest.

If you make the lowest payment, which is what 80 percent of borrowers did, you are in a negative amortization situation, and when your loan resets three to five years later, your principal is much, much larger than it was originally. And then your monthly payment skyrockets. And that is when people started defaulting.

This was a vastly middle class thing, not a CRA thing. Only an idiot would fail to see this blinding fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

80 percent of the borrowers who took Pick-A-Payment loans during the bubble only made the minimum allowed payment. In fact, it was a Wachovia internal document about how hard they were pushing Pick-A-Payment loans I stumbled upon in 2006 which alerted me to the enormity of the problem. My immediate reaction was to send an email to a reporter I knew.

She ignored it. Too bad. She would have broken the story long before the collapse.

I was interviewed by a smaller paper, and everyone called me nuts. They weren't laughing later, though.

A Pick-A-Payment loan has four payment options to choose from each month. If you make the highest payment, you will pay off your mortgage in 15 years. If you make the second highest payment, you will pay off in 30 years. If you make the third highest payment, you are only paying the interest.

If you make the lowest payment, which is what 80 percent of borrowers did, you are in a negative amortization situation, and when you loan resets three to five years later, your principal is much, much larger than it was originally. And then your monthly payment skyrockets. And that is when people started defaulting.

This was a vastly middle class thing, not a CRA thing. Only an idiot would fail to see this blinding fact.

I had one of those loans IT worked great.
They were a tiny percentage of the market. Which is why everyone ignored you.

 

[g5000]

Wrong.
The GSEs set criteria for what was prime

Nope. As I explained earlier, Wall Street got the regulators to loosen up the requirements by buying CDS on their CDOs, and this was entirely legitimate in the beginning. But then they abused the living shit out of the relaxation of the rules.

It was JP Morgan which began this process.

 

[g5000]

80 percent of the borrowers who took Pick-A-Payment loans during the bubble only made the minimum allowed payment. In fact, it was a Wachovia internal document about how hard they were pushing Pick-A-Payment loans I stumbled upon in 2006 which alerted me to the enormity of the problem. My immediate reaction was to send an email to a reporter I knew.

She ignored it. Too bad. She would have broken the story long before the collapse.

I was interviewed by a smaller paper, and everyone called me nuts. They weren't laughing later, though.

A Pick-A-Payment loan has four payment options to choose from each month. If you make the highest payment, you will pay off your mortgage in 15 years. If you make the second highest payment, you will pay off in 30 years. If you make the third highest payment, you are only paying the interest.

If you make the lowest payment, which is what 80 percent of borrowers did, you are in a negative amortization situation, and when you loan resets three to five years later, your principal is much, much larger than it was originally. And then your monthly payment skyrockets. And that is when people started defaulting.

This was a vastly middle class thing, not a CRA thing. Only an idiot would fail to see this blinding fact.

I had one of those loans IT worked great.
They were a tiny percentage of the market. Which is why everyone ignored you.

Pick-A-Pay Goes Away... - BusinessWeek

The memo about Pick-A-Payment loans was what tipped me off into looking deeping into what was going on. I talked about a lot more than those particular loans. Option ARMs, CDOs, CDS, the interest rate swaps that municipalities were being hoaxed into, and so forth.

I even stated the exact price I would one day pay for a huge house that was on the market as an example of how bad it was going to get. THAT is what made everyone call me crazy.

Two and a half years later, I actually ended up paying 10 grand less than what I had said for that house. That's about as close to nailing it as it gets.

 

[Arianrhod]

good grief, what channel was this fairy tale on? CNN ? and they blamed the Banks?

So you feel the banks were just innocent victims? Please explain.

What are banks supposed to do when they have the federal govt threatening them to lend sub prime?

Ask you to explain what "threatening them to lend sub prime" means.

 

[g5000]

The idea the federal government was forcing Wall Street to make these toxic loans is beyond hilarious. It actually serves as a litmus test to see just how ignorant a person is about the ways and means of the global economic crisis.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The idea the federal government was forcing Wall Street to make these toxic loans is beyond hilarious. It actually serves as a litmus test to see just how ignorant a person is about the ways and means of the global economic crisis.

It's only hilarious because you don't know dick about how F/F work

 

[g5000]

Remember what I said about being a builder and then getting to bet the house you built will burn down?

Yeah.



Daniel Sparks and Tom Montag: Goldman Sachs. Constructed the fraudulent Timberwolf billion dollar toxic mortgage security and sold it to investors (you), then profited by betting against it. Deliberately stuffed the security with mortgages they knew were toxic so they could bet on its failure while also profiting from its sale it to investors.

Goldman Sued Again


Brian H. Stoker: Citigroup. Constructed the fraudulent Class V Funding III CDO-squared which ripped off investors (you) for over $700 million.

He stole $700 million and paid a fine of $285 million. Is this a disincentive to steal?!?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/business/citigroup-to-pay-285-million-to-settle-sec-charges.html


Fabrice Tourre: Goldman Sachs. John Paulson: Paulson & Co. Inc . Constructed the fraudulent Abacus 2007-ac1 CDO for which Goldman Sachs was fined but no one went to prison. Tourre allowed hedge fund manager John Paulson to select the toxic mortgages to be placed in the CDO so Goldman Sachs and Paulson could bet against it.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp-pr2010-59.pdf


Angelo Mozilo: Countrywide CEO. Committed the exact same kind of crime as the Enron CEO and financial officers did, and yet he walks free. Mozillo kept telling investors that Countrywide was "consistently producing quality mortgages" while his internal memos show that he was well aware his company was creating the most toxic mortgages on the planet. The SEC originally demanded a jury trial for Mozillo, but he ultimately walked away with a fine and no admission of wrongdoing.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp21068.pdf


Richard Harriton: Bear Stearns. Along with 13 executives and brokers, defrauded investors of $75 million through stock manipulation.

Bear Stearns paid the SEC a fine of $38.5 million, half of the amount they stole from their investors!

Bear Stearns in $38M settlement - Aug. 5, 1999





Roland Arnall: Ameriquest. Inventor of the "stated asset" (NINJA) loan.

Paid a $325 million settlement with 49 state AGs in early 2006 for misrepresenting and failing to disclose loan terms, charging excessive loan origination fees and inflating appraisals to qualify borrowers for loans.

March 2006, installed as US ambassador to the Netherlands!

How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America -- and Spawned a Global Crisis | John Mauldin | Safehaven.com

Roland Arnall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Check out that last one. Remember Nannygate? Someone hired a nanny ten years previously who was an illegal immigrant and couldn't get their presidential appointment confirmed by Congress.

But this sleazebag from Ameriquest gets nominated and confirmed as a US Ambassador right after being caught as one of the biggest criminals on Wall Street!

If that does not tell you that our federal government is aiding and abetting these fuckers, nothing will.

You can't make this shit up.

This guy had his brokers forge borrowers' signatures on subprime loans.

Don't believe me? Read this: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America -- and Spawned a Global Crisis | John Mauldin | Safehaven.com

Read every word of that.


This is why I find anyone who thinks these people were forced to make toxic loans to be absolutely clueless.

 

[Arianrhod]

The idea the federal government was forcing Wall Street to make these toxic loans is beyond hilarious. It actually serves as a litmus test to see just how ignorant a person is about the ways and means of the global economic crisis.

They're so conditioned to blame low-income people that it's their reflex for everything.

I wonder how they feel about the people whose homes were devalued in the crash? Or the Enron employees who lost their pensions? Must be those people's faults, not the execs who caused the problem.

Idiots.

 

[g5000]

Some dumbshit in Congress who obviously watched too much Fox News asked Dick Fuld how much the CRA had to do with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

His response: "De minimus."

You won't find a single CEO of any financial institution anywhere who blames the collapse of the economy on the CRA.

Only clueless parrots do.

 

[The Rabbi]

80 percent of the borrowers who took Pick-A-Payment loans during the bubble only made the minimum allowed payment. In fact, it was a Wachovia internal document about how hard they were pushing Pick-A-Payment loans I stumbled upon in 2006 which alerted me to the enormity of the problem. My immediate reaction was to send an email to a reporter I knew.

She ignored it. Too bad. She would have broken the story long before the collapse.

I was interviewed by a smaller paper, and everyone called me nuts. They weren't laughing later, though.

A Pick-A-Payment loan has four payment options to choose from each month. If you make the highest payment, you will pay off your mortgage in 15 years. If you make the second highest payment, you will pay off in 30 years. If you make the third highest payment, you are only paying the interest.

If you make the lowest payment, which is what 80 percent of borrowers did, you are in a negative amortization situation, and when you loan resets three to five years later, your principal is much, much larger than it was originally. And then your monthly payment skyrockets. And that is when people started defaulting.

This was a vastly middle class thing, not a CRA thing. Only an idiot would fail to see this blinding fact.

I had one of those loans IT worked great.
They were a tiny percentage of the market. Which is why everyone ignored you.

Pick-A-Pay Goes Away... - BusinessWeek

The memo about Pick-A-Payment loans was what tipped me off into looking deeping into what was going on. I talked about a lot more than those particular loans. Option ARMs, CDOs, CDS, the interest rate swaps that municipalities were being hoaxed into, and so forth.

I even stated the exact price I would one day pay for a huge house that was on the market as an example of how bad it was going to get. THAT is what made everyone call me crazy.

Two and a half years later, I actually ended up paying 10 grand less than what I had said for that house. That's about as close to nailing it as it gets.

Arent you smart! So smart!

 

[The Rabbi]

The idea the federal government was forcing Wall Street to make these toxic loans is beyond hilarious. It actually serves as a litmus test to see just how ignorant a person is about the ways and means of the global economic crisis.

They're so conditioned to blame low-income people that it's their reflex for everything.

I wonder how they feel about the people whose homes were devalued in the crash? Or the Enron employees who lost their pensions? Must be those people's faults, not the execs who caused the problem.

Idiots.

You understand no one is blaming low income people, right? Low income people didnt create the lending mandate. Democrats did.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some dumbshit in Congress who obviously watched too much Fox News asked Dick Fuld how much the CRA had to do with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

His response: "De minimus."

You won't find a single CEO of any financial institution anywhere who blames the collapse of the economy on the CRA.

Only clueless parrots do.

Why should we listen to CEOs opinions of what crashed the economy?

 

[g5000]

Some dumbshit in Congress who obviously watched too much Fox News asked Dick Fuld how much the CRA had to do with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

His response: "De minimus."

You won't find a single CEO of any financial institution anywhere who blames the collapse of the economy on the CRA.

Only clueless parrots do.

Why should we listen to CEOs opinions of what crashed the economy?

If they could blame the government for their fuck-up, they would. If they could show the government forced them to make their toxic loans, they would.

But no such evidence exists, because it is the polar opposite of the truth.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

good grief, what channel was this fairy tale on? CNN ? and they blamed the Banks?

So you feel the banks were just innocent victims? Please explain.

What are banks supposed to do when they have the federal govt threatening them to lend sub prime?

Ask you to explain what "threatening them to lend sub prime" means.

Barney baby:

"Barney Frank was the principal advocate in Congress for using the government's authority to force lower underwriting standards in the business of housing finance. Although he claims to have tried to reverse course as early as 2003, that was the year he made the oft-quoted remark, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing." Rather than reversing course, he was pressing on when others were beginning to have doubts."


Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis