i always knew the dollar takedown was by design now i see the agenda, wealth transfer and power consolidation. problem,reaction,solution. giving more power to the root of the problem to solve that problem is strikingly retarded.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the way the U.S. financial industry is regulated.
In an effort to deal with the problems highlighted by the current severe credit crisis, the new plan would give major new powers to the Federal Reserve, according to a 22-page executive summary obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
The proposal would designate the Fed as the primary regulator of market stability, greatly expanding the central bank's ability to examine not just commercial banks but all segments of the financial services industry. Posted by Ace of Spades on :
This will end the United States as we know it...
the federal reserve bank is a private bank ownde by the Bank of England......
England will rule the United States once again!
Posted by osubucks30 on :
I just do NOT GET THIS???????? LET THE MARKETS PLAY THIS ALL OUT!!!!! PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY FOR THE STUFF THAT HAPPENED! MAYBE NOT JUST KEEP PRINTING $$$$$$!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Propertymanager on :
I think we all agree - this is insanity! Give the Fed that caused this entire problem more power - yeah, that's what we need!
Posted by Highwaychild on :
That's your Bush! And Dick is probably behind the, ummm, Bush... We're screwed.
Posted by glassman on :
the dollar takedown is the ONLY way we can pay for our debts from the Iraq war.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I agree. The manipulation going on is insane and directly related to the balance on our credit card.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: This will end the United States as we know it...
the federal reserve bank is a private bank ownde by the Bank of England......
England will rule the United States once again!
LoL The Fed is many things but owned by the Bank of England it's not....
Posted by retiredat49 on :
If you haven't noticed....the United States are about as divided as you can get...which imo is also by design...
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: This will end the United States as we know it...
Most sweeping changes since Great Depression Proposal will give the Federal Reserve new regulatory power
A) the Fed is a private organisation, it should not have ANY regulatory power.
B) read between the lines, if this situation demands the "most sweeping changes since Great Depression" then the situation is probably the same.
Posted by rimasco on :
Agreed
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
It seems many don't no much about the Federal Reserve System....Here are some videos
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Most sweeping changes since Great Depression Proposal will give the Federal Reserve new regulatory power [/b]
That headline is something else isn't it?
It wasn't a month ago I heard the Bushanator saying he didn't see us in a recession that we was in, now trying to get this through.
Posted by bond006 on :
Why are private corporations getting regulatory power over our lives financialy and personaly?
I am starting to get a bad feeling for real about this country,my freedom,and it seems like our new lord and masters
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Why are private corporations getting regulatory power over our lives financialy and personaly?
Because the richest people in the world met at Jekyll Island in 1910 to plan our (their) 4th central bank! They've been controlling our money every since!
Posted by turbokid on :
just make sure you guys call me when the revolution starts... i'll bring the ammo. Posted by Highwaychild on :
I think Obamma will get in there and with the Democratic majority try to take it back. I hope he's not the AntiChrist... But If he's not, I think He'll do some good(lol), at least the first 4 years because he will want to get re-elected.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:I think Obamma will get in there and with the Democratic majority try to take it back.
You're kidding, right? Obama is a socialist and the central banks of the world have been pushing their socialist agenda for decades. He won't do anything about the Fed.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: Why are private corporations getting regulatory power over our lives financialy and personaly?
I am starting to get a bad feeling for real about this country,my freedom,and it seems like our new lord and masters
Because you continue to elect the lying corrupt politicians that are owned by private corporations and who don't give a rats azz about US...you know, politicians like Obama bin lying and Billary "I got shot at in Bosnia" and Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton and.....
Posted by Highwaychild on :
The last time a Democrat was in there, we were in ALOT BETTER shape than we are in right now, weren't we? NOT that I think either Him OR McCain will do any good, just hoping against hope over here...
Posted by bond006 on :
retired this happened under Bush's watch how did voting for Clinton 8 years ago make Beasr Stearns faillast week?
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Bond, most economists will tell you that economic cycles are generally accepted at either 4 or 6 years. That means that the policies enacted take 4 to 6 years to have meaningful effects. Clinton and Bush Sr. were benefitting from Reagan's work. And Junior was heir to Clinton's.
Just saying.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Just saying.
Your "just saying" is strictly opinion. To blame the Bear Stearns collapse on Clinton is not only retarded but totally biased as usual from a right winger... Bear Stearns happened due to Bush Jr. and his policies that affected this country's economic woes as of present and no one else...
Posted by turbokid on :
its not so much bush as it is the fed and their meddling.
"give me control over a country's currency and i care not who makes its laws..." -M.Rothschild
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Yes, Mach. My 'just saying' IS my opinion. That's what I thought most postings were. And not to nitpick, but I never even insinuated that Bear Stearns was Clinton's work. Bear Stearns was simply the poster child for all lenders that floated 'liar loans' to people who didn't have the ability to repay them. I personally feel that most of the economic crisis we're passing through is the well deserved repercussions of people who think that because others OFFER you credit, you should ACCEPT.
Still, just saying.
Posted by bond006 on :
Bear stearns was bush jr work for the most part deregulation that led to greed and profit motive run wild.
Started with the first republican traitor Ronnie.
As far as loans go why do you think these criminals offered these loans to thoes people, The bankers never ment to sevice the loans they made they did the loans to sell.
I don't blame anybody that applied for the loans and got them they were sold a bill of goods.
I would try it to if I was in the same position. want my peice of the American dream.
Posted by glassman on :
i hate to tell you Dems this, but i DO NOT like the Clintons for VERY good and well thought out reasons:
Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system By Martin McLaughlin 1 November 1999
An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system. The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.
The Bush's and the Clinbtons are nearly indistinguishable to me in a large number of areas....
Delaney clause
The Delaney Clause is a 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, named after Congressman James Delaney of New York. It said:
"the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals."
The Delaney Clause was invoked in 1959 by the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare when the cancer-causing herbicide aminotriazole was discovered on cranberry plants in Oregon and Washington. Taking place the week of Thanksgiving, the announcement was referred to by many in the cranberry industry as "Black Monday" -- sales plummeted, even though many government officials attempted to defuse the scare by declaring their intention to eat cranberries anyway. This episode is regarded as one of the first modern food scares based on a chemical additive.
The Delaney Clause applied to pesticides in processed foods, but only when residues of a cancer causing pesticide increased during processing; for example when more of a pesticide was present in ketchup than in the raw tomatoes used to make it. (It never applied to pesticides in raw foods.) In 1988 the United States Environmental Protection Agency eased restrictions on several pesticides which posed a "de minimus" risk to humans. This change was challenged by the Natural Resources Defense Council, and over-turned in 1992 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Pesticide use was removed from the Delaney Clause in 1996 by an amendment to Title IV of the Food Quality Protection Act.
Posted by glassman on :
he also signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996....
as a direct result? we now have cable bills that are ridiculous too..
the Clintons do not look out for the "little-people" at all...
the phrase "largely based on the presumptions of the effectiveness of competition and the success of deregulation.” has become a joke...
Enron? LOL deregulation "to stimulate competition" LOL
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Originally posted by bond006: Bear stearns was bush jr work for the most part deregulation that led to greed and profit motive run wild.
Glassman already shot this one down.
Started with the first republican traitor Ronnie.
I don't hold Reagan in as high regard as most, but please elaborate.
As far as loans go why do you think these criminals offered these loans to thoes people, The bankers never ment to sevice the loans they made they did the loans to sell.
No crime was commited. They offer a 'bill of goods' as you called it. Noone held a gun to the heads of those who signed up for them.
I don't blame anybody that applied for the loans and got them they were sold a bill of goods.
Why not? They accepted honest obligations and then failed to fulfill their part. That is certainly not something to advocate.
I would try it to if I was in the same position. want my peice of the American dream.
Most of us do. It's just that some of us want to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror when we get our piece and be able to do so with some matter of pride.
Posted by bond006 on :
Home > News > Boston Globe > Opinion > Op-ed
ROBERT KUTTNER The dangers of deregulation By Robert Kuttner | March 17, 2007
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and the US Chamber of Commerce picked an awkward moment for their latest assault on financial and consumer-protection regulation. At the very moment that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was meeting with Wall Street bigwigs in a high-profile confab this week to call for weakening of the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other investor and consumer protections, the stock market was tanking.
Article Tools Printer friendly E-mail to a friend Op-ed RSS feed Available RSS feeds Most e-mailed Reprints & Licensing Share on Digg Share on Facebook Save this article powered by Del.icio.us More: Globe Editorials / Op-Ed | Globe front page | Boston.com Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Why is the market so nervous? Mainly thanks to the latest bitter fruit of financial deregulation : the collapsing $1.3 trillion "subprime" mortgage business, which now accounts for one mortgage in three. Here is a textbook case of why financial institutions need to be regulated, to protect both consumers and the solvency of the larger economy.
In the past decade, as regulators discarded rules, shady mortgage banking companies, financed by the bluest-chip outfits on Wall Street, calculated that they could make a lot of money offering bait-and-switch mortgages to poor credit risks. Default and foreclosure rates would be greater, but higher profits would more than compensate for the risks. So the subprime mortgage industry, enabled by the big banks, invented amazing gimmicks. These included not just variable-rate mortgages, but mortgages that were initially interest only, mortgages with introductory teaser rates, mortgages with no down payment. No income verification required! No credit check! Subprime operators targeted people with horrific credit histories and families desperate for housing who could not afford the debt they were taking on. Last year, 60 percent of subprime loans required no meaningful documentation.
Then came the morning-after: As higher payments kicked in, people couldn't meet them. Defaults skyrocketed, to an estimated 13 percent of all such loans. At least 25 subprime lenders have gone out of business. The big dogs on Wall Street, who had invested in the subprime operators, took a big hit, too.
It's not clear where this will end. Many low-income families will lose their homes. Innocent investors will suffer the spillover effects on the stock market, and general mortgage rates may have to go up to compensate for these losses of reckless speculation.
But wait. Weren't these subprime lenders doing good works by making it easier for low-income borrowers to become homeowners? Sure -- in the same way that the Mafia helps small-business owners desperate for credit. If the goal is to promote low-income homeownership, there are far better ways that don't put financial markets at risk and don't cause people to lose their homes after a few years.
For instance, the FHA has long had a program of insured loans that require only a 3 percent down payment (and have a much lower default rate). Non profit and public programs like Neighborhood Housing Services offer long-term help to moderate-income homebuyers on credit counseling. If we were serious about promoting first-time homeownership, we would offer subsidized, low-rate mortgages, as we did in the Great Society era, before Reagan and the Bushes gutted social spending.
The subprime mortgage industry had no real commitment to the homebuyer, who was merely a handy means of making a quick buck. Ever since the Wall Street wiseguys invented "securitization" of mortgage loans, a mortgage company with little of its own capital at risk has been able to originate loans and sell them off to middlemen who turn them into bonds. Both the mortgage company and the middlemen make their money on the transactions, and some lucky investor ends up with the bonds and the risks.
Supposedly, the wizards of the private secondary mortgage market, such as Fannie Mae, vet the mortgages to make sure reasonable standards are being met. But Fannie has been reeling from her own scandals, and obviously someone was asleep at the switch.
A spectacular casualty was a subprime lender called New Century Financial, which has now suspended loans. Between 2004 and 2006 its three founders, perhaps seeing the coming abyss, realized $40 million in stock-sale profits, and are now under investigation for possible improper trading and rigged accounting.
Congress is also investigating the entire mess, while mortgage industry lobbyists hope to fend off regulation by using the low-income family as poster child for the industry's misdeeds: Regulation would just hurt the poor.
But before the mid-1970s, this kind of meltdown didn't happen, because there were regulations and prudent credit standards; low-income people got government help rather than private-market scams -- and there were hardly any defaults. How many more financial scandals will it take before we get back to that model?
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a fellow at Demos. His column appears regularly in the Globe.
If there was no crime committed why are standard and poors amongst other securities raters being investagated as to how these mortage backed securities of stated subprime realestate got rated at A,AA,,AAA paper and after they were sold some defaulted in less than 6 months on there payout cupons sound like misrepresentation to me time will tell.
As for Reagan he started the first banking deregulation since Roseavelt
Clinton did his job to but I just don't like Republicans I see so many of them locked up still thinking they are morally supeior they make me sick.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: Home > News > Boston Globe > Opinion > Op-ed
ROBERT KUTTNER The dangers of deregulation By Robert Kuttner | March 17, 2007
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and the US Chamber of Commerce picked an awkward moment for their latest assault on financial and consumer-protection regulation. At the very moment that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was meeting with Wall Street bigwigs in a high-profile confab this week to call for weakening of the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other investor and consumer protections, the stock market was tanking.
Article Tools Printer friendly E-mail to a friend Op-ed RSS feed Available RSS feeds Most e-mailed Reprints & Licensing Share on Digg Share on Facebook Save this article powered by Del.icio.us More: Globe Editorials / Op-Ed | Globe front page | Boston.com Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Why is the market so nervous? Mainly thanks to the latest bitter fruit of financial deregulation : the collapsing $1.3 trillion "subprime" mortgage business, which now accounts for one mortgage in three. Here is a textbook case of why financial institutions need to be regulated, to protect both consumers and the solvency of the larger economy.
In the past decade, as regulators discarded rules, shady mortgage banking companies, financed by the bluest-chip outfits on Wall Street, calculated that they could make a lot of money offering bait-and-switch mortgages to poor credit risks. Default and foreclosure rates would be greater, but higher profits would more than compensate for the risks. So the subprime mortgage industry, enabled by the big banks, invented amazing gimmicks. These included not just variable-rate mortgages, but mortgages that were initially interest only, mortgages with introductory teaser rates, mortgages with no down payment. No income verification required! No credit check! Subprime operators targeted people with horrific credit histories and families desperate for housing who could not afford the debt they were taking on. Last year, 60 percent of subprime loans required no meaningful documentation.
Then came the morning-after: As higher payments kicked in, people couldn't meet them. Defaults skyrocketed, to an estimated 13 percent of all such loans. At least 25 subprime lenders have gone out of business. The big dogs on Wall Street, who had invested in the subprime operators, took a big hit, too.
It's not clear where this will end. Many low-income families will lose their homes. Innocent investors will suffer the spillover effects on the stock market, and general mortgage rates may have to go up to compensate for these losses of reckless speculation.
But wait. Weren't these subprime lenders doing good works by making it easier for low-income borrowers to become homeowners? Sure -- in the same way that the Mafia helps small-business owners desperate for credit. If the goal is to promote low-income homeownership, there are far better ways that don't put financial markets at risk and don't cause people to lose their homes after a few years.
For instance, the FHA has long had a program of insured loans that require only a 3 percent down payment (and have a much lower default rate). Non profit and public programs like Neighborhood Housing Services offer long-term help to moderate-income homebuyers on credit counseling. If we were serious about promoting first-time homeownership, we would offer subsidized, low-rate mortgages, as we did in the Great Society era, before Reagan and the Bushes gutted social spending.
The subprime mortgage industry had no real commitment to the homebuyer, who was merely a handy means of making a quick buck. Ever since the Wall Street wiseguys invented "securitization" of mortgage loans, a mortgage company with little of its own capital at risk has been able to originate loans and sell them off to middlemen who turn them into bonds. Both the mortgage company and the middlemen make their money on the transactions, and some lucky investor ends up with the bonds and the risks.
Supposedly, the wizards of the private secondary mortgage market, such as Fannie Mae, vet the mortgages to make sure reasonable standards are being met. But Fannie has been reeling from her own scandals, and obviously someone was asleep at the switch.
A spectacular casualty was a subprime lender called New Century Financial, which has now suspended loans. Between 2004 and 2006 its three founders, perhaps seeing the coming abyss, realized $40 million in stock-sale profits, and are now under investigation for possible improper trading and rigged accounting.
Congress is also investigating the entire mess, while mortgage industry lobbyists hope to fend off regulation by using the low-income family as poster child for the industry's misdeeds: Regulation would just hurt the poor.
But before the mid-1970s, this kind of meltdown didn't happen, because there were regulations and prudent credit standards; low-income people got government help rather than private-market scams -- and there were hardly any defaults. How many more financial scandals will it take before we get back to that model?
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a fellow at Demos. His column appears regularly in the Globe.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Originally posted by bond006: Bear stearns was bush jr work for the most part deregulation that led to greed and profit motive run wild.
Glassman already shot this one down.
Started with the first republican traitor Ronnie.
I don't hold Reagan in as high regard as most, but please elaborate.
As far as loans go why do you think these criminals offered these loans to thoes people, The bankers never ment to sevice the loans they made they did the loans to sell.
No crime was commited. They offer a 'bill of goods' as you called it. Noone held a gun to the heads of those who signed up for them.
I don't blame anybody that applied for the loans and got them they were sold a bill of goods.
Why not? They accepted honest obligations and then failed to fulfill their part. That is certainly not something to advocate.
I would try it to if I was in the same position. want my peice of the American dream.
Most of us do. It's just that some of us want to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror when we get our piece and be able to do so with some matter of pride.
Great post...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
the Clintons do not look out for the "little-people" at all...
Glass...I hate the Clintons as much as you, and for good reason...
My question is, WHO is looking out for the little guy?
I can't find one...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
But before the mid-1970s, this kind of meltdown didn't happen, because there were regulations and prudent credit standards; low-income people got government help rather than private-market scams -- and there were hardly any defaults. How many more financial scandals will it take before we get back to that model?
Here's where I think the yellow brick road starts to get a little tarnished. Something bad happens and we start crying for big daddy G to come save us.
LET SOME PEOPLE FAIL!!!!
Poor decisions need to have consequnces or they will be repeated. Let some lenders collapse. Let some people lose their homes. Do they end up on the streets? No, they get an apartment while they build their credit back up. The lenders who weren't playing bait and switch games will have a huge market advantage due to the death of their less honest colleagues.
Capatilism works. Just give it time without smothering it in government red tape.
Posted by turbokid on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: LET SOME PEOPLE FAIL!!!!
yes, including the banks making 500,000 loans to mcdonalds cooks.
Let some people lose their homes. Do they end up on the streets? No, they get an apartment while they build their credit back up.
well not always...
ONTARIO, California (Reuters) - Between railroad tracks and beneath the roar of departing planes sits "tent city," a terminus for homeless people. It is not, as might be expected, in a blighted city center, but in the once-booming suburbia of Southern California.
The noisy, dusty camp sprang up in July with 20 residents and now numbers 200 people, including several children, growing as this region east of Los Angeles has been hit by the U.S. housing crisis.
The unraveling of the region known as the Inland Empire reads like a 21st century version of "The Grapes of Wrath," John Steinbeck's novel about families driven from their lands by the Great Depression. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1850682120071221 Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: [
As far as loans go why do you think these criminals offered these loans to thoes people, The bankers never ment to sevice the loans they made they did the loans to sell.
No crime was commited. They offer a 'bill of goods' as you called it. Noone held a gun to the heads of those who signed up for them.
actually, the crime is duplicitous.
the person that wrote the bad loan and sold it knew exactly what they were doing. they know or should know about the creditworthiness of the borrower, that is their job.
the broker/seller of the loan has a responsibility to the buyer of the loan.
they should be held legally liable by the person that bought the note.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Good lord Seek,
Do you remember buying your first house? The amount of numbers on those sheets would confuse an accountant. It takes time for folks to understand which numbers are important and which are not and there is no re-do. For many folks a home mortgage is the most complicated contract they ever review and are dependent on the lender for it to make sense and be told if it is a good deal or not.
P.S. Welcome to the board and good luck trading. Biggest rule it took me the longest to understand...cash is a position. If your stock is not gaining as expected, sell and wait for it to make sense again or move on to something more stable. Only expect 1 in four of your picks to be winners.
Posted by glassman on :
buying your first house?
i have been thru well over a dozen closings, in every single one of them somebody acted like it was stupid to read the paperwork...
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: buying your first house?
i have been thru well over a dozen closings, in every single one of them somebody acted like it was stupid to read the paperwork...
Youre telling me you read that all paperwork everytime? God bless. My ADD wont allow me. WOW how many hours is your closing? I remember racing through signing, ending 2hrs later witha a sore hand.....and a$$
Posted by bond006 on :
One of my neighbors was a loan officer in a big brokerage house. Made zillions of loans to subprime.
He told me all they did was have meetings and classes on how to close and sign a contract.
Another words a way to steal.
When you are poor and don't think you deserve a loan you will close your eyes to alot of things that you sould not, all you know is that you want and some body is offering you a way.
Good salesmen know that and make it sound to easy.
I know that some on this board say so what .
But think why were thoese people targetted for this nobody who sevices a loan lends money like they did for the purpose of servicing the loan ad makeing your money by hard work.
They had different plans and to keep every body in realestate happy they made it possible for every body to get a good cut of the pie and they left with the lions share.
Now the tax payer is stuck with the mess this will make the S&L bail out look like a childs game. By the way you can thank the Bush faamily for that one to.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: buying your first house?
i have been thru well over a dozen closings, in every single one of them somebody acted like it was stupid to read the paperwork...
Youre telling me you read that all paperwork everytime? God bless. My ADD wont allow me. WOW how many hours is your closing? I remember racing through signing, ending 2hrs later witha a sore hand.....and a$$
i read pretty fast, and i know what i'm looking for. and yes, people get annoyed, but they are making the big bucks, they don't mind making me wait outside in the waiting room for an hour.
Posted by rimasco on :
Just curious you ever find things they didnt disclose? Just wondering cause im dopey when it comes to that stuff and really did whip right through.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco: Just curious you ever find things they didnt disclose? Just wondering cause im dopey when it comes to that stuff and really did whip right through.
yes, many times, but not at closing. i do tend to read stuff as it's made available, and make sure i have it available to me before i show up at closing, that way i'm mostly just verifying that what i have seen before is the same and i can look for surprises.
take a real estate course thru a broker. some of them will pay for it if you want to part-time, some won't. the courses are good places to network too...
the biggest "surprise" i ever got at closing was that i once closed on a house where the owners thought they would stay for two more weeks free... even their agent was trying to tell me that it was "normal" to do this.. i laughed in her face.
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by rimasco: Just curious you ever find things they didnt disclose? Just wondering cause im dopey when it comes to that stuff and really did whip right through.
the biggest "surprise" i ever got at closing was that i once closed on a house where the owners thought they would stay for two more weeks free... even their agent was trying to tell me that it was "normal" to do this.. i laughed in her face.
Theyll say anything to get the deal DONE
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Thanks for the welcome, Big. That makes me feel a little better. Out of our first 10 picks (some of which I took from these boards) only 4 have been in the green. 3 are long termers, imo, like GPGD and the others, well, I haven't lost more than I've made so I can't complain too loudly.
As for reading all the papers, on my first house I looked for four things. Interest type (fixed or adjustable), quick glance through the total fees, final payout if taken to term, and monthly payments. Total reading time: 10 mins. I really do feel that for the most part those things should have been enough for most people to realize they weren't going to be able to make good on the loans. If the lenders deliberately hid things or falsified paperwork then, yes, they should be punished in accordance with the pertaining laws. However, I haven't heard of any allegations of such let alone indictments. This was a case of greedy lenders relaxing standards and people who simply wanted more house than they could afford. Shame on both, but make sure the shame IS on both.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Oh, forgot one thing. My current house was purchased under a sub-prime loan with an adjustable rate. We had just sold our house (which still showed on my credit at the time), we had another condo that we were renting out to family, and now we were purchasing our current house because the previous owner wanted out and was facing forclosure. Under most circumstances floating a loan to someone who looks like they are going to be making three house payments on one income would be crazy. But one year later we are still here making our payments on time. The condo is sold (which paid off all our bills except a small student loan) and in another year we plan to refinance to a fixed rate mortgage.
These loans were not inherantly evil, economically speaking; they were simply extended to too many people who weren't willing or able to meet their ends of the bargains. I am grateful they were there for my situation and fully intend to do whatever I have to in order to make good on my end of the deal.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
SeekingFreedom is right on (as I would expect from someone in Utah). This entire housing problem was an experiment in social engineering that has gone awry. Do you remember President Bush talking about the home ownership numbers after 2001 when the job numbers weren't doing very well? That became a substitute: a chicken in every pot and a home for everyone, even those that can't afford it! Just drop interest rates; put pressure on banks to make loans to people who weren't qualified; pump money into the economy; and wait for the bubble to appear!
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
As right (leaning) as they come.
Posted by bond006 on :
Some of you are missing the point if it was just failed loans it would not be that bad.
Selling all thoese loans to back securities and getting them a phony ratting was the crime.
Its called fraud pension funds,state governments,other banks now they are dying slowly in need of liquid capital,
Thats the problem and most of the people that did the dirty work are gone or still shredding paper.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Curious here...where do you guys see interest rates going in the near future?
I've been trying to follow the MBS Bond market some lately and some folks are saying we might see historic dips yet as MBS bonds adjust to the new 10 yr treasury rates while fueled by people looking for safe securities during the recession.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: SeekingFreedom is right on (as I would expect from someone in Utah). This entire housing problem was an experiment in social engineering that has gone awry. Do you remember President Bush talking about the home ownership numbers after 2001 when the job numbers weren't doing very well? That became a substitute: a chicken in every pot and a home for everyone, even those that can't afford it! Just drop interest rates; put pressure on banks to make loans to people who weren't qualified; pump money into the economy; and wait for the bubble to appear!
i agree with all of your statement except the part about the "noble" motives.
social engineering expirement my azz. it was a conspiracy to defraud the investment public.
Posted by turbokid on :
The US Federal Reserve has sent staff into some of Wall Street’s biggest firms and its New York branch is gathering evidence on key traders’ activities as America’s central bank raises its scrutiny of risk to an unprecedented level.
Fed staff have set up shop in Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns to monitor their financial condition just days after Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, proposed that the Fed become the financial industry’s “risk czar”. ....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)