Predatory Lending

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]666Rich wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Shouldn’t be hard to find, but I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. In this particular context, I am the source. I have lived through it in the early days as a Finance Director and later as the manager of a large GM dealership. I am just sharing my particular experience. [/quote]

This is the kind of BS that keeps PWI such a cartoonish joke of a forum.
[/quote]

And this is the kind of response that makes me think you are a petulant little bitch. Your question is fucking wide open. What exactly were you wanting documentation of.
And as I told you, I have first person knowledge of what I spoke of.
So, just exactly how do you want me to source my direct experience.

So, in short, fuck you. [/quote]

If you think asking a simple question, and then calling someone on their bullshit is petulant, then you are as stupid as you come across.

I’ll make it more simple for you. In a thread about predatory lending, you have intimately linked Obama to GM and predatory lending practices. You went so far as to call this his “pet project.” You, in fact, do not have direct personal experience here. Your experience may be with financing cars, but you can in no way link that to an Obama policy or directive.

Or, you can continue your circle jerk.
[/quote]
No, my little pin-headed ninja, I did not in the way you are implying. I stated my knowledge and long time business dealings with a company called Americredit (over fifteen years). I then went on to tell how this lender with a less than scrupulous past was purchased by GM, with taxpayer’s money (because all of their money was taxpayer’s money at this time) to replace GMAC which they no longer owned. I then went on to say that a sizable portion of the uptick in sales has been due in fact to a lot of what would be categorized as subprime lending through this new entity called GM Finance (Americredit).
Now, if you have some kind of stake in some sacred cow (GM, the Dalibama, Americredit, GM Financial), I really don’t give a rat’s ass.
Also, If you are denying the role that Obama and his administration played in fucking the debt holders (bondholders), overriding the normal path, process and procedures of corporate bankruptcy, then chew on this.

Bondholders, who had financed the last several years of GM’s decline owned $27 billion in GM bonds. So, the gov’t comes and makes them a settlement offer of 10% of the new company.

Meanwhile, in the next room sets the UAW, which has a claim on $20 billion for its health care and pension obligations. The fed offers them 39% of the new company in exchange for sacrificing half or $10 billion of that.

Meanwhile, across town, the gubament was working out a deal that would net the UAW 55% of the new Chrysler.

Now was I implying that the Dalibama was fucking the bondholders in favor of his favored UAW voting block? Absolutely. You you deny or do you have your head so far up Obama’s ass that your chin whiskers tickle his prostate?

Now what else would you like me to help you out with? [/quote]

Good information, I always learn something from your posts.
[/quote]

+1. Informative.

42

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

This is not a political issue. All markets should be governed legally but US Presidents do not run the mortgage loan industry. Gov’t should and does set legal parameters but it is not the job of gov’t to micro-manage private industry. Period. It is not one presidents fault or anothers for dumbasses taking out a mortgage that costs more each month than they earn and the banks should take personal issue in their employees who give out bad loans.

This is a private market matter and in the US always should be.[/quote]

Ideally, yes. But in reality the private market is not entirely private, particularly the more lawmakers (and the presidents who cheerlead and push for certain policymaking agendas) interfere with market forces. Throw in QGEs (Fannie and Freddie), and you have a mess. QGEs do not operate on the same market forces that the rest of the private sector SHOULD (even though they don’t operate this way in reality either) because they are also beholden to the gov’t that pushes their legislative policy through enforcing QGE operations in that direction.

EDIT: And yes, it is the dumbasses fault for taking out the mortgage – even though they can be swindled by clever salepeople. And yes the banks should fire shady salespeople, but they don’t because they were in it to gain anyways and it helps their short-term bottom line when they ditch the subprimes onto someone else, as Ironcross noted earlier.[/quote]and banks generating bad loans would go out of business if the govt wasn’t expected to play robinhood. Retards would sell the homes they could never afford and the market would fix itself. The bleeding hearts.and well intentioned socialists actually make it worse with their predatory lending bullshit witch hunt.

43

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

This is not a political issue. All markets should be governed legally but US Presidents do not run the mortgage loan industry. Gov’t should and does set legal parameters but it is not the job of gov’t to micro-manage private industry. Period. It is not one presidents fault or anothers for dumbasses taking out a mortgage that costs more each month than they earn and the banks should take personal issue in their employees who give out bad loans.

This is a private market matter and in the US always should be.[/quote]

Ideally, yes. But in reality the private market is not entirely private, particularly the more lawmakers (and the presidents who cheerlead and push for certain policymaking agendas) interfere with market forces. Throw in QGEs (Fannie and Freddie), and you have a mess. QGEs do not operate on the same market forces that the rest of the private sector SHOULD (even though they don’t operate this way in reality either) because they are also beholden to the gov’t that pushes their legislative policy through enforcing QGE operations in that direction.

EDIT: And yes, it is the dumbasses fault for taking out the mortgage – even though they can be swindled by clever salepeople. And yes the banks should fire shady salespeople, but they don’t because they were in it to gain anyways and it helps their short-term bottom line when they ditch the subprimes onto someone else, as Ironcross noted earlier.[/quote]and banks generating bad loans would go out of business if the govt wasn’t expected to play robinhood. Retards would sell the homes they could never afford and the market would fix itself. The bleeding hearts.and well intentioned socialists actually make it worse with their predatory lending bullshit witch hunt.
[/quote]

True, but how long on average would it take a crafty bank generating bad loans to go out of business and how much could they damage the economy in that amount of time? I’m really against giving them that amount of time.

Right now you could buy a house in Detroit for $5,000 because of how skewed the supply and demand was. Obviously, the retards can’t just sell the house they could never afford because they bought it for a price it was never worth. I thought that point was clear from the first post.

44

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

This is not a political issue. All markets should be governed legally but US Presidents do not run the mortgage loan industry. Gov’t should and does set legal parameters but it is not the job of gov’t to micro-manage private industry. Period. It is not one presidents fault or anothers for dumbasses taking out a mortgage that costs more each month than they earn and the banks should take personal issue in their employees who give out bad loans.

This is a private market matter and in the US always should be.[/quote]

Ideally, yes. But in reality the private market is not entirely private, particularly the more lawmakers (and the presidents who cheerlead and push for certain policymaking agendas) interfere with market forces. Throw in QGEs (Fannie and Freddie), and you have a mess. QGEs do not operate on the same market forces that the rest of the private sector SHOULD (even though they don’t operate this way in reality either) because they are also beholden to the gov’t that pushes their legislative policy through enforcing QGE operations in that direction.

EDIT: And yes, it is the dumbasses fault for taking out the mortgage – even though they can be swindled by clever salepeople. And yes the banks should fire shady salespeople, but they don’t because they were in it to gain anyways and it helps their short-term bottom line when they ditch the subprimes onto someone else, as Ironcross noted earlier.[/quote]and banks generating bad loans would go out of business if the govt wasn’t expected to play robinhood. Retards would sell the homes they could never afford and the market would fix itself. The bleeding hearts.and well intentioned socialists actually make it worse with their predatory lending bullshit witch hunt.
[/quote]

True, but how long on average would it take a crafty bank generating bad loans to go out of business and how much could they damage the economy in that amount of time? I’m really against giving them that amount of time.

Right now you could buy a house in Detroit for $5,000 because of how skewed the supply and demand was. Obviously, the retards can’t just sell the house they could never afford because they bought it for a price it was never worth. I thought that point was clear from the first post.[/quote]
Yet the house would be off a banks books and if a common practice the bank would go red and close its doors as it collected 5k on 300k loans. The SEC regulations would force their closure in fact if tax dollars weren’t robbed from the rich… And I’m not too concerned with the retards making their money back. Personal responsibility is a concept often lost on the socialists (: Frankly, letting the market adjust itself in that way would cause inflation trends in general to reverse which is good for everyone. And, the retards most likely didn’t even put 5k into their ARM loan to begin with, so the consequence still lands squarely on the bank. Even if they did though, they made their bed. It’s not the tax payers responsibility to carry their fuck ups.

45

There was a nice thread about this last year, but I don’t feel like digging it up (I don’t remember the thread title). But basically back then there were Agency products (loans backed by Fannie and Freddie) and there were Portfolio loans. MOST of the “exotic” products (2/28 ARMs, SISA, SIVA, etc…) were Portfolio loans NOT insured by (and therefore not following the lending/underwriting guidelines of) any of the GSEs.

These portfolio products were then chopped up into derivatives (CDOs) mixed with tranches of Agency products, chopped up and divided AGAIN and sold as AAA investments all over the world.

In other words, to put it in layman’s terms, back then (2005) I could give someone with a 500 credit score a STATED income and asset loan with 100% financing. That loan was “bundled” with someone who had an 800 score and who had put 20% down. This “bundle” was sold as AAA.

This occurred THOUSANDS of times and was perpetuated by banks and hedge funds, most of which are out of business now. Even the big ones that are still around (Wells, BOA, Chase and Citi) are only here cuz of bailouts - they were hip deep into the shit as well. Then when the industry began to “tighten up”, some of the last remaining lenders (in particular, a lender who had a warehouse line with Citi) analyzed the “loopholes” in the existing FHA/VA (Ginnie Mae) guidelines and actually came to our broker’s office and TAUGHT US HOW TO LIE on FHA loan application and VOE forms!

So we had BANKS sending their Account Executives to their Brokers and teaching their loan officers how to lie. It was business as usual. This was in 2009/ early 2010. Why would any bank in it’s right mind NOT recognize the RISK of lending to people who aren’t qualified??? I mean, didn’t they learn their lesson when the entire country’s economy went to SHIT??? Of COURSE they didn’t learn their lesson!

The lesson they learned was this: We’re too big to fail. If we fuck up, the Taxpayers will pay for our mistakes. Putting people in loans they can’t afford means we get to charge them HIGHER INTEREST RATES and they will gladly take them, so we will earn MORE money. When we earn more money, our share holders will be happy and give us multimillion dollar bonuses. If the loans don’t perform, we can just blame the bad economy.

It’s STILL business as fucking usual. The SAME people who fucked our economy before are STILL in charge of the SAME banks. And when they fail their stress tests AGAIN, guess who will be left holding the bag AGAIN?

WE will.

46

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
There was a nice thread about this last year, but I don’t feel like digging it up (I don’t remember the thread title). But basically back then there were Agency products (loans backed by Fannie and Freddie) and there were Portfolio loans. MOST of the “exotic” products (2/28 ARMs, SISA, SIVA, etc…) were Portfolio loans NOT insured by (and therefore not following the lending/underwriting guidelines of) any of the GSEs.

These portfolio products were then chopped up into derivatives (CDOs) mixed with tranches of Agency products, chopped up and divided AGAIN and sold as AAA investments all over the world.

In other words, to put it in layman’s terms, back then (2005) I could give someone with a 500 credit score a STATED income and asset loan with 100% financing. That loan was “bundled” with someone who had an 800 score and who had put 20% down. This “bundle” was sold as AAA.

This occurred THOUSANDS of times and was perpetuated by banks and hedge funds, most of which are out of business now. Even the big ones that are still around (Wells, BOA, Chase and Citi) are only here cuz of bailouts - they were hip deep into the shit as well. Then when the industry began to “tighten up”, some of the last remaining lenders (in particular, a lender who had a warehouse line with Citi) analyzed the “loopholes” in the existing FHA/VA (Ginnie Mae) guidelines and actually came to our broker’s office and TAUGHT US HOW TO LIE on FHA loan application and VOE forms!

So we had BANKS sending their Account Executives to their Brokers and teaching their loan officers how to lie. It was business as usual. This was in 2009/ early 2010. Why would any bank in it’s right mind NOT recognize the RISK of lending to people who aren’t qualified??? I mean, didn’t they learn their lesson when the entire country’s economy went to SHIT??? Of COURSE they didn’t learn their lesson!

The lesson they learned was this: We’re too big to fail. If we fuck up, the Taxpayers will pay for our mistakes. Putting people in loans they can’t afford means we get to charge them HIGHER INTEREST RATES and they will gladly take them, so we will earn MORE money. When we earn more money, our share holders will be happy and give us multimillion dollar bonuses. If the loans don’t perform, we can just blame the bad economy.

It’s STILL business as fucking usual. The SAME people who fucked our economy before are STILL in charge of the SAME banks. And when they fail their stress tests AGAIN, guess who will be left holding the bag AGAIN?

WE will.

[/quote]

Please repost this in the Occupy Wallstreet thread?!

47

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
There was a nice thread about this last year, but I don’t feel like digging it up (I don’t remember the thread title). But basically back then there were Agency products (loans backed by Fannie and Freddie) and there were Portfolio loans. MOST of the “exotic” products (2/28 ARMs, SISA, SIVA, etc…) were Portfolio loans NOT insured by (and therefore not following the lending/underwriting guidelines of) any of the GSEs.

These portfolio products were then chopped up into derivatives (CDOs) mixed with tranches of Agency products, chopped up and divided AGAIN and sold as AAA investments all over the world.

In other words, to put it in layman’s terms, back then (2005) I could give someone with a 500 credit score a STATED income and asset loan with 100% financing. That loan was “bundled” with someone who had an 800 score and who had put 20% down. This “bundle” was sold as AAA.

This occurred THOUSANDS of times and was perpetuated by banks and hedge funds, most of which are out of business now. Even the big ones that are still around (Wells, BOA, Chase and Citi) are only here cuz of bailouts - they were hip deep into the shit as well. Then when the industry began to “tighten up”, some of the last remaining lenders (in particular, a lender who had a warehouse line with Citi) analyzed the “loopholes” in the existing FHA/VA (Ginnie Mae) guidelines and actually came to our broker’s office and TAUGHT US HOW TO LIE on FHA loan application and VOE forms!

So we had BANKS sending their Account Executives to their Brokers and teaching their loan officers how to lie. It was business as usual. This was in 2009/ early 2010. Why would any bank in it’s right mind NOT recognize the RISK of lending to people who aren’t qualified??? I mean, didn’t they learn their lesson when the entire country’s economy went to SHIT??? Of COURSE they didn’t learn their lesson!

The lesson they learned was this: We’re too big to fail. If we fuck up, the Taxpayers will pay for our mistakes. Putting people in loans they can’t afford means we get to charge them HIGHER INTEREST RATES and they will gladly take them, so we will earn MORE money. When we earn more money, our share holders will be happy and give us multimillion dollar bonuses. If the loans don’t perform, we can just blame the bad economy.

It’s STILL business as fucking usual. The SAME people who fucked our economy before are STILL in charge of the SAME banks. And when they fail their stress tests AGAIN, guess who will be left holding the bag AGAIN?

WE will.

[/quote]

Please repost this in the Occupy Wallstreet thread?![/quote]

Why should he?

If financial institutions are fucking things up there is an excellent remedy.

They go bankrupt and get no more hookers or Ferraris.

Bailing them out however removes the fear that keeps the greed in check.

The right place to protest this is Washington and the solution is not more handouts to the “little guy” and absolutely, positively no handouts to banks.

48

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
There was a nice thread about this last year, but I don’t feel like digging it up (I don’t remember the thread title). But basically back then there were Agency products (loans backed by Fannie and Freddie) and there were Portfolio loans. MOST of the “exotic” products (2/28 ARMs, SISA, SIVA, etc…) were Portfolio loans NOT insured by (and therefore not following the lending/underwriting guidelines of) any of the GSEs.

These portfolio products were then chopped up into derivatives (CDOs) mixed with tranches of Agency products, chopped up and divided AGAIN and sold as AAA investments all over the world.

In other words, to put it in layman’s terms, back then (2005) I could give someone with a 500 credit score a STATED income and asset loan with 100% financing. That loan was “bundled” with someone who had an 800 score and who had put 20% down. This “bundle” was sold as AAA.

This occurred THOUSANDS of times and was perpetuated by banks and hedge funds, most of which are out of business now. Even the big ones that are still around (Wells, BOA, Chase and Citi) are only here cuz of bailouts - they were hip deep into the shit as well. Then when the industry began to “tighten up”, some of the last remaining lenders (in particular, a lender who had a warehouse line with Citi) analyzed the “loopholes” in the existing FHA/VA (Ginnie Mae) guidelines and actually came to our broker’s office and TAUGHT US HOW TO LIE on FHA loan application and VOE forms!

So we had BANKS sending their Account Executives to their Brokers and teaching their loan officers how to lie. It was business as usual. This was in 2009/ early 2010. Why would any bank in it’s right mind NOT recognize the RISK of lending to people who aren’t qualified??? I mean, didn’t they learn their lesson when the entire country’s economy went to SHIT??? Of COURSE they didn’t learn their lesson!

The lesson they learned was this: We’re too big to fail. If we fuck up, the Taxpayers will pay for our mistakes. Putting people in loans they can’t afford means we get to charge them HIGHER INTEREST RATES and they will gladly take them, so we will earn MORE money. When we earn more money, our share holders will be happy and give us multimillion dollar bonuses. If the loans don’t perform, we can just blame the bad economy.

It’s STILL business as fucking usual. The SAME people who fucked our economy before are STILL in charge of the SAME banks. And when they fail their stress tests AGAIN, guess who will be left holding the bag AGAIN?

WE will.

[/quote]

Please repost this in the Occupy Wallstreet thread?![/quote]

The right place to protest this is Washington and the solution is not more handouts to the “little guy” and absolutely, positively no handouts to banks. [/quote]

100% correct

49

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Shouldn’t be hard to find, but I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. In this particular context, I am the source. I have lived through it in the early days as a Finance Director and later as the manager of a large GM dealership. I am just sharing my particular experience. [/quote]

This is the kind of BS that keeps PWI such a cartoonish joke of a forum.
[/quote]

And this is the kind of response that makes me think you are a petulant little bitch. Your question is fucking wide open. What exactly were you wanting documentation of.
And as I told you, I have first person knowledge of what I spoke of.
So, just exactly how do you want me to source my direct experience.

So, in short, fuck you. [/quote]

If you think asking a simple question, and then calling someone on their bullshit is petulant, then you are as stupid as you come across.

I’ll make it more simple for you. In a thread about predatory lending, you have intimately linked Obama to GM and predatory lending practices. You went so far as to call this his “pet project.” You, in fact, do not have direct personal experience here. Your experience may be with financing cars, but you can in no way link that to an Obama policy or directive.

Or, you can continue your circle jerk.
[/quote]
No, my little pin-headed ninja, I did not in the way you are implying. I stated my knowledge and long time business dealings with a company called Americredit (over fifteen years). I then went on to tell how this lender with a less than scrupulous past was purchased by GM, with taxpayer’s money (because all of their money was taxpayer’s money at this time) to replace GMAC which they no longer owned. I then went on to say that a sizable portion of the uptick in sales has been due in fact to a lot of what would be categorized as subprime lending through this new entity called GM Finance (Americredit).
Now, if you have some kind of stake in some sacred cow (GM, the Dalibama, Americredit, GM Financial), I really don’t give a rat’s ass.
Also, If you are denying the role that Obama and his administration played in fucking the debt holders (bondholders), overriding the normal path, process and procedures of corporate bankruptcy, then chew on this.

Bondholders, who had financed the last several years of GM’s decline owned $27 billion in GM bonds. So, the gov’t comes and makes them a settlement offer of 10% of the new company.

Meanwhile, in the next room sets the UAW, which has a claim on $20 billion for its health care and pension obligations. The fed offers them 39% of the new company in exchange for sacrificing half or $10 billion of that.

Meanwhile, across town, the gubament was working out a deal that would net the UAW 55% of the new Chrysler.

Now was I implying that the Dalibama was fucking the bondholders in favor of his favored UAW voting block? Absolutely. You you deny or do you have your head so far up Obama’s ass that your chin whiskers tickle his prostate?

Now what else would you like me to help you out with? [/quote]

LOL… Epic ownage…great post.

50

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

This is not a political issue. All markets should be governed legally but US Presidents do not run the mortgage loan industry. Gov’t should and does set legal parameters but it is not the job of gov’t to micro-manage private industry. Period. It is not one presidents fault or anothers for dumbasses taking out a mortgage that costs more each month than they earn and the banks should take personal issue in their employees who give out bad loans.

This is a private market matter and in the US always should be.[/quote]

Ideally, yes. But in reality the private market is not entirely private, particularly the more lawmakers (and the presidents who cheerlead and push for certain policymaking agendas) interfere with market forces. Throw in QGEs (Fannie and Freddie), and you have a mess. QGEs do not operate on the same market forces that the rest of the private sector SHOULD (even though they don’t operate this way in reality either) because they are also beholden to the gov’t that pushes their legislative policy through enforcing QGE operations in that direction.

EDIT: And yes, it is the dumbasses fault for taking out the mortgage – even though they can be swindled by clever salepeople. And yes the banks should fire shady salespeople, but they don’t because they were in it to gain anyways and it helps their short-term bottom line when they ditch the subprimes onto someone else, as Ironcross noted earlier.[/quote]and banks generating bad loans would go out of business if the govt wasn’t expected to play robinhood. Retards would sell the homes they could never afford and the market would fix itself. The bleeding hearts.and well intentioned socialists actually make it worse with their predatory lending bullshit witch hunt.
[/quote]

True, but how long on average would it take a crafty bank generating bad loans to go out of business and how much could they damage the economy in that amount of time? I’m really against giving them that amount of time.

Right now you could buy a house in Detroit for $5,000 because of how skewed the supply and demand was. Obviously, the retards can’t just sell the house they could never afford because they bought it for a price it was never worth. I thought that point was clear from the first post.[/quote]
Yet the house would be off a banks books and if a common practice the bank would go red and close its doors as it collected 5k on 300k loans. The SEC regulations would force their closure in fact if tax dollars weren’t robbed from the rich… And I’m not too concerned with the retards making their money back. Personal responsibility is a concept often lost on the socialists (: Frankly, letting the market adjust itself in that way would cause inflation trends in general to reverse which is good for everyone. And, the retards most likely didn’t even put 5k into their ARM loan to begin with, so the consequence still lands squarely on the bank. Even if they did though, they made their bed. It’s not the tax payers responsibility to carry their fuck ups.[/quote]

My point wasn’t that the policies should buy their asses out of the debt they got themselves into; it was that policies should be in place to prevent them from getting into it in the first place.

As I pointed out, this is not just an issue of “oh they fucked up. It only affects them.” You see, if you, a credit-worthy and savvy buyer, were to enter the market after these people had bought their houses at unrealistically high prices on bad loans, the house that you would buy would be appraised for more than it was actually worth. This is because appraisals are based on what other houses are selling for, which is based on demand, which is based on how much money people have. Bad loans make it looks like there is more demand in the market than there actually is. Therefore, you, a perfectly innocent and smart buyer, will end up buying a house for more than its worth because other people were allowed to take out loans that they couldn’t afford.

So in other words, their stupidity IS your problem. When you decide you want to move two years later when the market is tanking because everyone is starting to figure out that there isn’t as much worth in it as they thought, you will quickly realize what a pain in the ass these people are to you PERSONALLY. You cannot sell your house for even as much as the mortgage you are religiously paying on it and you could afford. So you’re stuck. And it’s not your fault. You weren’t the one creating the problem.

I’m saying, stop the stupidity of others before it creates an inconvenience for everyone.

51

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
There was a nice thread about this last year, but I don’t feel like digging it up (I don’t remember the thread title). But basically back then there were Agency products (loans backed by Fannie and Freddie) and there were Portfolio loans. MOST of the “exotic” products (2/28 ARMs, SISA, SIVA, etc…) were Portfolio loans NOT insured by (and therefore not following the lending/underwriting guidelines of) any of the GSEs.

These portfolio products were then chopped up into derivatives (CDOs) mixed with tranches of Agency products, chopped up and divided AGAIN and sold as AAA investments all over the world.

In other words, to put it in layman’s terms, back then (2005) I could give someone with a 500 credit score a STATED income and asset loan with 100% financing. That loan was “bundled” with someone who had an 800 score and who had put 20% down. This “bundle” was sold as AAA.

This occurred THOUSANDS of times and was perpetuated by banks and hedge funds, most of which are out of business now. Even the big ones that are still around (Wells, BOA, Chase and Citi) are only here cuz of bailouts - they were hip deep into the shit as well. Then when the industry began to “tighten up”, some of the last remaining lenders (in particular, a lender who had a warehouse line with Citi) analyzed the “loopholes” in the existing FHA/VA (Ginnie Mae) guidelines and actually came to our broker’s office and TAUGHT US HOW TO LIE on FHA loan application and VOE forms!

So we had BANKS sending their Account Executives to their Brokers and teaching their loan officers how to lie. It was business as usual. This was in 2009/ early 2010. Why would any bank in it’s right mind NOT recognize the RISK of lending to people who aren’t qualified??? I mean, didn’t they learn their lesson when the entire country’s economy went to SHIT??? Of COURSE they didn’t learn their lesson!

The lesson they learned was this: We’re too big to fail. If we fuck up, the Taxpayers will pay for our mistakes. Putting people in loans they can’t afford means we get to charge them HIGHER INTEREST RATES and they will gladly take them, so we will earn MORE money. When we earn more money, our share holders will be happy and give us multimillion dollar bonuses. If the loans don’t perform, we can just blame the bad economy.

It’s STILL business as fucking usual. The SAME people who fucked our economy before are STILL in charge of the SAME banks. And when they fail their stress tests AGAIN, guess who will be left holding the bag AGAIN?

WE will.

[/quote]

Yep.

Also, I’d like to point out that unless policies are in place to prevent banks and lenders from doing this in the future, it will probably happen again, even if the current banks were allowed to go out of business. Why? Because these corporations with harmful policies can benefit the people who run them for a short time and those people could leave the company while they are ahead, before the company they run falls apart.

Anyone who thinks that some well-educated businessmen wouldn’t eventually try this is naive. Our own congress does it.

52

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

This is not a political issue. All markets should be governed legally but US Presidents do not run the mortgage loan industry. Gov’t should and does set legal parameters but it is not the job of gov’t to micro-manage private industry. Period. It is not one presidents fault or anothers for dumbasses taking out a mortgage that costs more each month than they earn and the banks should take personal issue in their employees who give out bad loans.

This is a private market matter and in the US always should be.[/quote]

Ideally, yes. But in reality the private market is not entirely private, particularly the more lawmakers (and the presidents who cheerlead and push for certain policymaking agendas) interfere with market forces. Throw in QGEs (Fannie and Freddie), and you have a mess. QGEs do not operate on the same market forces that the rest of the private sector SHOULD (even though they don’t operate this way in reality either) because they are also beholden to the gov’t that pushes their legislative policy through enforcing QGE operations in that direction.

EDIT: And yes, it is the dumbasses fault for taking out the mortgage – even though they can be swindled by clever salepeople. And yes the banks should fire shady salespeople, but they don’t because they were in it to gain anyways and it helps their short-term bottom line when they ditch the subprimes onto someone else, as Ironcross noted earlier.[/quote]and banks generating bad loans would go out of business if the govt wasn’t expected to play robinhood. Retards would sell the homes they could never afford and the market would fix itself. The bleeding hearts.and well intentioned socialists actually make it worse with their predatory lending bullshit witch hunt.
[/quote]

True, but how long on average would it take a crafty bank generating bad loans to go out of business and how much could they damage the economy in that amount of time? I’m really against giving them that amount of time.

Right now you could buy a house in Detroit for $5,000 because of how skewed the supply and demand was. Obviously, the retards can’t just sell the house they could never afford because they bought it for a price it was never worth. I thought that point was clear from the first post.[/quote]
Yet the house would be off a banks books and if a common practice the bank would go red and close its doors as it collected 5k on 300k loans. The SEC regulations would force their closure in fact if tax dollars weren’t robbed from the rich… And I’m not too concerned with the retards making their money back. Personal responsibility is a concept often lost on the socialists (: Frankly, letting the market adjust itself in that way would cause inflation trends in general to reverse which is good for everyone. And, the retards most likely didn’t even put 5k into their ARM loan to begin with, so the consequence still lands squarely on the bank. Even if they did though, they made their bed. It’s not the tax payers responsibility to carry their fuck ups.[/quote]

My point wasn’t that the policies should buy their asses out of the debt they got themselves into; it was that policies should be in place to prevent them from getting into it in the first place.

As I pointed out, this is not just an issue of “oh they fucked up. It only affects them.” You see, if you, a credit-worthy and savvy buyer, were to enter the market after these people had bought their houses at unrealistically high prices on bad loans, the house that you would buy would be appraised for more than it was actually worth. This is because appraisals are based on what other houses are selling for, which is based on demand, which is based on how much money people have. Bad loans make it looks like there is more demand in the market than there actually is. Therefore, you, a perfectly innocent and smart buyer, will end up buying a house for more than its worth because other people were allowed to take out loans that they couldn’t afford.

So in other words, their stupidity IS your problem. When you decide you want to move two years later when the market is tanking because everyone is starting to figure out that there isn’t as much worth in it as they thought, you will quickly realize what a pain in the ass these people are to you PERSONALLY. You cannot sell your house for even as much as the mortgage you are religiously paying on it and you could afford. So you’re stuck. And it’s not your fault. You weren’t the one creating the problem.

I’m saying, stop the stupidity of others before it creates an inconvenience for everyone.[/quote]
Which brings me back to my original point that gov’t has no business regulating the private sector. If they had not stepped in with bailout money, the guilty banks would be out of existance, everything I mentioned would have happened and you can bet business strategy at suriving and new banks would be nothing like the failed model before them.

Instead, giving gov’t control lets failed banks keep on failing and we will see a vicious cycle for sure.

The only difference in our posts are that you want the gov’t to step in and play daddy and I want the kids to settle the issue themselves on the playground.

Granting gov’t more and more power, even if well intentioned, is dangerous to our freedom. As I’m sure you’d agree, absolute power corrupts absolutely, does it not? We’ve seen how they handle the situation once. It’s business as usual and the only lingering effect is a more powerful gov’t ready to step in to private affairs at any time.

53

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The only difference in our posts are that you want the gov’t to step in and play daddy and I want the kids to settle the issue themselves on the playground.

Granting gov’t more and more power, even if well intentioned, is dangerous to our freedom. As I’m sure you’d agree, absolute power corrupts absolutely, does it not? We’ve seen how they handle the situation once. It’s business as usual and the only lingering effect is a more powerful gov’t ready to step in to private affairs at any time.

[/quote]

Read my response to Angry Chicken’s post at the top of this page. It’s naive to think that giving the “kids” full freedom when it comes to lending is a wise idea. No government policy is what we had to begin with. It tanked the market, JUST LIKE IT DID IN THE 1920’s (they had no lending policies back then either).

The people running the companies are aware that what they are doing wont generate lasting profit, but it does generate enough profit for them and their families to become ridiculously rich and then get out before the whole scheme comes crashing down.

54

[quote]ironcross wrote:
No government policy is what we had to begin with. [/quote]

You sure? It seemed to like home ownership was a big in DC for a while there.

55

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
No government policy is what we had to begin with. [/quote]

You sure? It seemed to like home ownership was a big in DC for a while there.
[/quote]

What policies were there regarding specifically insuring that lies were not told during any part of the lending process?

56

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The only difference in our posts are that you want the gov’t to step in and play daddy and I want the kids to settle the issue themselves on the playground.

Granting gov’t more and more power, even if well intentioned, is dangerous to our freedom. As I’m sure you’d agree, absolute power corrupts absolutely, does it not? We’ve seen how they handle the situation once. It’s business as usual and the only lingering effect is a more powerful gov’t ready to step in to private affairs at any time.

[/quote]

Read my response to Angry Chicken’s post at the top of this page. It’s naive to think that giving the “kids” full freedom when it comes to lending is a wise idea. No government policy is what we had to begin with. It tanked the market, JUST LIKE IT DID IN THE 1920’s (they had no lending policies back then either).

The people running the companies are aware that what they are doing wont generate lasting profit, but it does generate enough profit for them and their families to become ridiculously rich and then get out before the whole scheme comes crashing down. [/quote]
It’s ridiculous to let gov’t take the reigns and expect a Utopian society.

If we are going to extremes regarding gov’t involvement I will mention the Kremlin, Nazi Germany, N. Korea and China.

I would much rather have a handful of retards get greedy in a sleezy and equally greedy mortgage brokers office and have both face the music of their poor decisions without my tax dollars helping either one of them out of the beds they each made on the same contract.

Edit: I’ve already mentioned some regulatory policies are necessary. What we have in place absolutely works and if the gov’t would have stayed out of it, no bailouts, the banks would have failed, the retards would have faced their own music and the market would have corrected itself.

You are validating my whole premise, IC. We are both wanting a solution so it makes sense this is the case, I just don’t think daddy needs to step in when his rules of engagement are already in place and only need to be followed. The consequences of not following them are self-prophecying anyways.

57

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
No government policy is what we had to begin with. [/quote]

You sure? It seemed to like home ownership was a big in DC for a while there.
[/quote]

What policies were there regarding specifically insuring that lies were not told during any part of the lending process?[/quote]

I was think more along the lines of incentives to accept lies. It seems to me that in the not so distant past the complaint was that there were segments of the population not getting access to lending and credit. The under-served (with a major focus on minorities). Now they shouldn’t have been given access? If they, the lenders, were unwilling, why such a quick about face?

58

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
No government policy is what we had to begin with. [/quote]

You sure? It seemed to like home ownership was a big in DC for a while there.
[/quote]

What policies were there regarding specifically insuring that lies were not told during any part of the lending process?[/quote]

I was think more along the lines of incentives to accept lies. It seems to me that in the not so distant past the complaint was that there were segments of the population not getting access to lending and credit. The under-served (with a major focus on minorities). Now they shouldn’t have been given access? If they, the lenders, were unwilling, why such a quick about face? [/quote]

I also suspected that maybe the push for everyone to have a house was responsible for the increase in faulty loans as well. Now, that might make sense for recent crash, but what about in the 1920s?

Also, are you denying that personal gain for those in charge was an incentive? While bad lending practices are terrible for the market and terrible for the company, they are great for those in charge for the short period of time that they seem like the new fix.

59

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Also, are you denying that personal gain for those in charge was an incentive?[/quote]

Not all, getting people into their own homes during the great home ownership push is good politics.

60

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
No government policy is what we had to begin with. [/quote]

You sure? It seemed to like home ownership was a big in DC for a while there.
[/quote]

What policies were there regarding specifically insuring that lies were not told during any part of the lending process?[/quote]

I was think more along the lines of incentives to accept lies. It seems to me that in the not so distant past the complaint was that there were segments of the population not getting access to lending and credit. The under-served (with a major focus on minorities). Now they shouldn’t have been given access? If they, the lenders, were unwilling, why such a quick about face? [/quote]

I also suspected that maybe the push for everyone to have a house was responsible for the increase in faulty loans as well. Now, that might make sense for recent crash, but what about in the 1920s?

Also, are you denying that personal gain for those in charge was an incentive? While bad lending practices are terrible for the market and terrible for the company, they are great for those in charge for the short period of time that they seem like the new fix.[/quote]

IN the 1920’s there was still a FED and fractional credit expansion. So…
1913-1921: FED system gets founded and credit bubble expands through fractional lending and Government build up for WW1.
1921: Bubble bursts, GOVERNMENT DOESN’T INTERVENE and there is a very steep Recession/Depression.
1922: Depression is OVER with NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE
1922-1929: FED credit expansion resumes.
1929: Bubble bursts, Hoover intervenes with “pro-labor” policies, tariffs, loan guarantees, etc… DEPRESSION DOESN’T END
1933: FDR Massively EXPANDS Hoover’s Government loans along with massive expansion of New Deal, DEPRESSION CONTINUES UNTIL AFTER WW2.

SO basically, your premise is bullshit because the FED and the Federal Government has been intervening for almost 100 years at this point.