- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So, maybe we should force people to pay for stuff...
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:34 am to Rollie Fingers
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:34 am to Rollie Fingers
quote:
There is an entire industry encouraging people to try to buy more home than they can afford.
And to buy credit cards, cars, milk, stamps.... sorry sales has existed since the beginning of time. Just because someone mails me a credit card offer, does not mean I accept it and blame them.
1
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:35 am to Rollie Fingers
quote:
People have always tried to live above their means.
Not always, the last time was around the late 1920's...
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:35 am to Rollie Fingers
quote:
Its a little different when banks are targetting people they know make bad financial decisions and breaking them off for more money.
So we should ban all forms of commercial advertising... afterall who really needs a new car and most people cannot afford it.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:39 am to igoringa
Or better truth in lending notices?
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:41 am to lashinala
quote:
Or better truth in lending notices?
OK what currently is the problem. With my mortgage I got a truth in lending statement that told me all I needed to know.
When I got an adjustable a few years back, it came with a ARM rider that told me the exact terms.
The laws and disclosure are already there. Need it be read to the borrowers with hand puppets?
What else needs to be disclosed?
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:42 am to igoringa
quote:
someone mails me a credit card
The difference in credit card abuse and mortgage abuse is that there are several organizations that have their hands in the home purchasing process that absolutely know the probability by percentages how likely a person will be to pay off their mortgage. There are traditional restrictions and regulations that were completely abandoned for the sole purpose of making money off over extended consumers. The regulations absolutely recognize the need to restrict how much money the bank lends based on the buyers financial situation. They positively knew they were probably destroying these people's lives by benefitting from their terrible financial decisions.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:45 am to Rollie Fingers
quote:
They positively knew they were probably destroying these people's lives by benefitting from their terrible financial decisions.
LMAO and credit card companies think their 20% interest rates are doing people a favor. Gotcha.
Also, if everyone on the business side knew this was complete failure, how did a market for MBS' exist and transpire? They all knew it was going to fail, but bought them for shits and giggles? They had the prospectus, they saw the info and obviously thought they were a worthy investment. Sorry if that does not fit the black cowboy hat world
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:48 am to igoringa
I agree with your argument against credit. Hopefully this crisis will radically change credit and make credit abuse a thing of the pass. I am not sure how you can think its acceptable for these credit companies to pray on people that make bad financial decisions. Your argument that its ok to exploit these people because they are stupid is terrible because ultimately everyone suffers and has to pay for it.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:51 am to Rollie Fingers
quote:
The organizations should have protected themselves not the buyers by not extending themselves in the widespread manner that has caused the problem.
that's the main problem
the defaulting mortgages are risks that the banks, investment firms, and insurance companies should have contemplated with their rates, investments, etc. they didn't do this accurately, and paid themselves hundreds of billions of dollars in bonuses for profiting off the phantom profits instead of reinvesting it in their own company. this is 100% on their shoulders
i don't think homeowners should be bailed out for stupid decisions. i don't think banks, investment firms, and insurance companies should either. and they're the parties responsible for the snowball
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:51 am to Rollie Fingers
quote:
Your argument that its ok to exploit these people because they are stupid is terrible because ultimately everyone suffers and has to pay for it.
No my argument is both parties have equal responsibility in any transaction. Period. It is not exploitation to agree without cohersion to a transaction in a free market.
I also dont buy the concept that people got to be protected from themselves and cannot make their own decisions. The pussification of America continues....
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:51 am to igoringa
quote:
What else needs to be disclosed?
the fraud used in order to secure these loans used by the brokers
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:53 am to Rollie Fingers
quote:
The organizations should have protected themselves not the buyers by not extending themselves in the widespread manner that has caused the problem.
You clearly do not grasp that it is not the lenders that are in trouble... it is the holders of the mortgage backs. We are not bailout out lenders; we are bailing out those who hold securitizations... completely different group of people. Lehman, Merrill and Bear did not write mortgages.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:54 am to igoringa
quote:
Also, if everyone on the business side knew this was complete failure, how did a market for MBS' exist and transpire? They all knew it was going to fail, but bought them for shits and giggles?
mis-rated securities in a system that the sellers rigged (most of these banks were sellers at one point)
quote:
they saw the info and obviously thought they were a worthy investment.
short-term, they were
why do you think there were hundreds of billions of dollars of bonus money coming off this phantom income?
they believed these were worthy investments for the same reason that raines thought the macs were doing well. the same line of thought jersey has been mocking for years on here. housing prices CAN go down. they were dumbasses who disagreed
there are a lot of investment firms and banks who have lost their shirts in the oil market after they artificially raised the prices of oil in the trading market. those who got in late, lost. big
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the fraud used in order to secure these loans used by the brokers
All underwriting assumptions are contained in the loan papers the borrower had access too. Why did the borrower not say that it was not prudent for the broker to say he makes $150K picking strawberries? Both are culpable.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:57 am to igoringa
quote:
I also dont buy the concept that people got to be protected from themselves and cannot make their own decisions. The pussification of America continues...
I never made this argument. The lending agencies abandoned long term sound lending practices that protected the lender and the buyer for short term gains, now the entire country is paying for it.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:58 am to igoringa
quote:
No my argument is both parties have equal responsibility in any transaction. Period. It is not exploitation to agree without cohersion to a transaction in a free market.
I also dont buy the concept that people got to be protected from themselves and cannot make their own decisions. The pussification of America continues....
Agree. I think a lot of people were not aware of what they were agreeing to, especially if you read the fine print in say, a credit card agreement. I'm not saying they deserve a break, only that many were duped...i.e. if every bank rips you off, then is the one that rips you off less than the others considered a 'good guy'?
It's still responsibility that is in question. Just whose.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 11:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why do you think there were hundreds of billions of dollars of bonus money coming off this phantom income?
A) Link me hundreds of billions.... no need to exaggerate here
B)Phantom income - please elaborate what was 'phantom'. The mortgages were real, the sales of the securities were real. Underlying quality of securitized assets does not mean 'phantom' to me, but I am open to hearing you elaborate on this matter.
quote:
they believed these were worthy investments for the same reason that raines thought the macs were doing well. the same line of thought jersey has been mocking for years on here. housing prices CAN go down. they were dumbasses who disagreed
Yes, they and the borrowers believed in the same ponzi scheme. I agree. Remember the argument here by me is both lender and borrower to blame. All parties are guilty.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:00 pm to igoringa
quote:
Both are culpable.
i didn't disagree with that
but there was a lot of fraud going on, and i bet that in many (not all, maybe not even most) cases, if the people knew that what was going on was fraudulent, they wouldn't have participated
i place more blame on those involved after the mortgage simply because if this ended at the inability to pay off all these mortgages, we wouldn't be in nearly as bad of a situation
it would be bad, but not "depression-worry" bad. the banks, investment firms, and insurance companies multiplied the impact by taking on risky investments that they swore to themselves had 0 risks (which actually meant they got less for them).
there was a house of cards, but the first floor was built by the dumbasses who took out bad mortgages. the next 5 were built by the big businesses who got too confident for their (and our) own good
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but there was a lot of fraud going on, and i bet that in many (not all, maybe not even most) cases, if the people knew that what was going on was fraudulent, they wouldn't have participated
What was the fraud?
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Both are cupable
quote:
i didn't disagree with that
nobody else did either. What he is really saying is the people are more to blame than the financial organizations which is completely incorrect.
This post was edited on 9/30/08 at 12:02 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News