- 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 12:03 pm to Rollie Fingers
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:03 pm to Rollie Fingers
quote:
I never made this argument.
Yes you did.
quote:
I am not sure how you can think its acceptable for these credit companies to pray on people that make bad financial decisions
quote:
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.
Again, you are saying the lender is responsible for the buyer's decision.... christ lets just nationalize it so we dont have to have the consumer worry their pretty little heads and do things like think.
1
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:04 pm to igoringa
if the lender is intentionally searching for frick ups that will not pay, they most certainly are more responsible.
This post was edited on 9/30/08 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:07 pm to Rollie Fingers
They knew they were not paying, they were banking on it.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:09 pm to Rollie Fingers
quote:
What he is really saying is the people are more to blame than the financial organizations which is completely incorrect.
Yes by saying:
quote:
No my argument is both parties have equal responsibility in any transaction.
I mean what you are saying. Not sure what is more challenging, your comprehension of the securitization and mortgage market or english comprehension.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:11 pm to Rollie Fingers
quote:
They knew they were not paying, they were banking on it.
Oh this should be rich... why were they 'banking on it'?
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:12 pm to igoringa
both are certainly lacking. Maybe you could find a way to turn a buck out of it.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:13 pm to Rollie Fingers
quote:
both are certainly lacking. Maybe you could find a way to turn a buck out of it.
I would be a billionaire if I could... so much to work with.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:13 pm to igoringa
quote:
why were they 'banking on it'?
Profit is made on people that cannot pay and have to pay a series of penalties and higher rates when they cannot make initial payments. Its not that complicated for a smart fellow like yourself.
This post was edited on 9/30/08 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:15 pm to igoringa
quote:
A) Link me hundreds of billions.... no need to exaggerate here
i've seen it written a few times, but the past 2 years alone it has been $60B+
LINK
i can only imagine what it has been the past 8 years or so (yes the past 2 were particularly big, but there are still 6 more years to account for)
quote:
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.
mortgages were real
their actual value was 5-50% of what that reported value was
and the risk associated with these was far higher than anyone wanted to admit, so the secondary and tertiary markets also had valuation problems.
to summarize, it was all based on bullshite, and now that the truth in valuation is coming out, you can see that. that's "phantom" to me. they were buying and selling worthless assets for above even the reported market value
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:16 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
What was the fraud?
incorrect data filled out
some of the "big risk" buyers were even riskier than what the paper said.
the mortgage brokers still pushed these through
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:16 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
Most fraud cited is with the brokers, not the lenders or securitizers. Second virtually all the fraud is staring back at the borrower in the loan package... stated income being the most obvious... right there in black and white for the borrower.
quote:
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 is at every level in my opinion... borrower - broker - lender - securitizer - asset purchaser.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:17 pm to Rollie Fingers
quote:
Profit is made on people that cannot pay and have to pay a series of penalties and higher rates when they cannot make initial payments.
Wait, so you are telling me that lenders lent $500K to borrowers they know could not pay... so that they could get some penalty interest?
Here give me $500K and I will generate all the penalty interest you want before I default. Jesus man.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and the risk associated with these was far higher than anyone wanted to admit,
Yes because no one wanted to admit Housing prices could actually go down, much less go down dramatically. You have people that couldn't afford the homes to begin with owing more than the house could be sold for. No one seemed to contemplate that possibility.
quote:
they were buying and selling worthless assets for above even the reported market value
link?
What they did was assume housing prices would continue to rise. Stupid, yes, fraud?
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:20 pm to igoringa
From there perspective, they lend to a risky buyer either they can make payments or they will end up paying penalties. Either way the short-term risk is covered.
This post was edited on 9/30/08 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i've seen it written a few times, but the past 2 years alone it has been $60B+
Your link is for all of wall street, not phantom income based. Are you saying every penny wall street made in all lines of business is phantom?
quote:
they were buying and selling worthless assets for above even the reported market value
Devils advocate, if you are able to buy and sell something.. it is hard to say that price of the arms length transaction is not a market price.
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
incorrect data filled out
like what exactly? Assuming housing prices were going to go up forever is fricking stupid, but not necessarily fraud.
quote:
some of the "big risk" buyers were even riskier than what the paper said.
again was that on purpose or just because of irrational exuberence?
This post was edited on 9/30/08 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:23 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
You have people that couldn't afford the homes to begin with owing more than the house could be sold for. No one seemed to contemplate that possibility.
and investment bankers will tell you more than any other profession (even lawyers) that they're the smartest people EVAR
easy money and greed got in the way of rationality and sound decision making
quote:
What they did was assume housing prices would continue to rise. Stupid, yes, fraud?
i didn't say THAT was fraud
the fraud was at the lowest level
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:24 pm to Rollie Fingers
quote:
From there perspective, they lend to a risky buyer either they can make payments or they will end up paying penalties. Either way the risk is covered.
So help me out here... you give someone $500K to buy a house you know they cant pay... because you think you will make a profit on the fees.... Think about this one.. you can figure it out. Second you again illustrate your ignorance of the process as the broker who generated the sale never holds the note (yet he is the 'hunter' in your example). The lender themselves hold for max 6 months before they securitize and sell (so they get little of this you claim). So those 'forcing' the strawberry picker do not benefit from the interest and fee windfall that only cost $500k to get.
If you want I can give you what your response should have been (ofcourse I am not able to support your 'banking on it' retardiness)
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:25 pm to igoringa
quote:
Are you saying every penny wall street made in all lines of business is phantom?
well we have firms that, if they crashed, would have crippled wall street apparently
so not all, but most
and that's 2/8 years
quote:
if you are able to buy and sell something.. it is hard to say that price of the arms length transaction is not a market price
then explain how we're in the mess that we're in
it's not FMW because that assumes that the buyers and sellers have a lot more information at their hands than the ones in these cases did.
and i forgot to add to the post that you just replied to. it wasn't just buying-selling assets that got us in shite. it was INSURING these assets that really is fricking us (both are based in the same problems, however)
Posted on 9/30/08 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and investment bankers will tell you more than any other profession (even lawyers) that they're the smartest people EVAR
being arrogant dickheads is not against the law.
quote:
easy money and greed got in the way of rationality and sound decision making
often does. Great line I got from a movie "Success is a menece, its makes smart people think they can't be wrong"
This post was edited on 9/30/08 at 12:51 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News