Markets Fail When Humans Are Unregulated

[beowolfe]

Tell me how you get rid of markets.

C'mon, dazzle me.

You change the habits of the people supporting those markets.

 

[Oddball]

I didn't ask that, Sir Dodgealot.

 

[Oddball]

The Moodys ratings forced?
HAHAHA LOL
Forced with cash from the banks and financial institutions to Moodys.
It is called commissions Dude and the government does not pay them.

So, now Moody's lied, huh?

How come they haven't been sued out of business?

 

[uscitizen]

The Moodys ratings forced?
HAHAHA LOL
Forced with cash from the banks and financial institutions to Moodys.
It is called commissions Dude and the government does not pay them.

So, now Moody's lied, huh?

How come they haven't been sued out of business?

got me, because they are pretty much in group that controls the government?

No oversight? And we have done nothing so far to prevent them from doing it again.


Moodys and S&P both rated derivitives low risk when they had ZERO historical or other evidence to base that rating on.

 

[beowolfe]

The Moodys ratings forced?
HAHAHA LOL
Forced with cash from the banks and financial institutions to Moodys.
It is called commissions Dude and the government does not pay them.

So, now Moody's lied, huh?

How come they haven't been sued out of business?

Read this and you'll know why.


Financial Ratings Agencies: Getting Off Easy? - Newsweek.com


BTW, if you are unaware of Moody's and S&P's role in the fiscal meltdown, you really ARE uninformed.

 

[Oddball]

Then why do Moody's and S&P have any credibility at all anymore?

Why haven't they been run out of business?

 

[beowolfe]

Then why do Moody's and S&P have any credibility at all anymore?

Why haven't they been run out of business?

Did you read the article?

 

[Gadawg73]

Dude, Moodys is getting sued out the ass. You prove my point.
If there was any validity to the "the government made us do it' NONE of those lawsuits would make it past summary judgement. That argument does not hold water in court Dude.
Because thereis no evidence to support it. In court, you have to have evidence. Something, anything Dude.
Please tell us you have some evidence to support that claim. No one else has any. Moodys $450 an hour lawyers have no evidence of those bogus claims.
Go see for yourself.
I sit on the board of a local bank. No government regulation made them do what they did. They did it because they made a shit load of cash for 15 years doing it. A good friend of mine is the largest shareholder in that bank and he lost his ASS.
And you claim the government forced him to lose 3 million?
Get in the real world.

 

[Vast LWC]

Read this and you'll know why.


Financial Ratings Agencies: Getting Off Easy? - Newsweek.com


BTW, if you are unaware of Moody's and S&P's role in the fiscal meltdown, you really ARE uninformed.

Nice article, I like how they're comparing Moody's and S&P's role to that of Arthur Andersen in the Enron scandal.

And right away you see why I think they're guilty of fraud:

In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday, a former Moody's managing director, Eric Kolchinsky, alleged that the firm was criminally deceiving investors by purportedly inflating ratings on securities even into the current year, long after the subprime scam had been exposed and the market crash had occurred. Richard Cantor, the firm's chief risk officer, dismissed the allegation as "without merit" at the hearing, but allowed that Moody's did "not give a high grade" to its own performance.

 

[Oddball]

Dude, Moodys is getting sued out the ass. You prove my point.
If there was any validity to the "the government made us do it' NONE of those lawsuits would make it past summary judgement. That argument does not hold water in court Dude.
Because thereis no evidence to support it. In court, you have to have evidence. Something, anything Dude.
Please tell us you have some evidence to support that claim. No one else has any. Moodys $450 an hour lawyers have no evidence of those bogus claims.
Go see for yourself.
I sit on the board of a local bank. No government regulation made them do what they did. They did it because they made a shit load of cash for 15 years doing it. A good friend of mine is the largest shareholder in that bank and he lost his ASS.
And you claim the government forced him to lose 3 million?
Get in the real world.

So, Moody's lied and getting their just deserts.

What's happening here is that y'all are proving my point about regulators and regulations.

Their only function appears to be to line the pockets of the regulators.

They neither discourage malefactors nor do they necessarily even apply to people who do business in a financially sound manner.

That your particular bank acted in a financially responsible manner is anecdotal, and no way representative of anyone but your bank.

 

[Vast LWC]

So, Moody's lied and getting their just deserts.

What's happening here is that y'all are proving my point about regulators and regulations.

Their only function appears to be to line the pockets of the regulators.

They neither discourage malefactors nor do they necessarily even apply to people who do business in a financially sound manner.

That your particular bank acted in a financially responsible manner is anecdotal, and no way representative of anyone but your bank.

But if regulations didn't exist, then in all probability any civil lawsuit against such firms would prove fruitless, as the plaintiff would not be able to point to any specific wrongdoing being done by the defendant, as there would be no guidelines to reference.

 

[beowolfe]

Dude, Moodys is getting sued out the ass. You prove my point.
If there was any validity to the "the government made us do it' NONE of those lawsuits would make it past summary judgement. That argument does not hold water in court Dude.
Because thereis no evidence to support it. In court, you have to have evidence. Something, anything Dude.
Please tell us you have some evidence to support that claim. No one else has any. Moodys $450 an hour lawyers have no evidence of those bogus claims.
Go see for yourself.
I sit on the board of a local bank. No government regulation made them do what they did. They did it because they made a shit load of cash for 15 years doing it. A good friend of mine is the largest shareholder in that bank and he lost his ASS.
And you claim the government forced him to lose 3 million?
Get in the real world.

So, Moody's lied and getting their just deserts.

What's happening here is that y'all are proving my point about regulators and regulations.

Their only function appears to be to line the pockets of the regulators.

They neither discourage malefactors nor do they necessarily even apply to people who do business in a financially sound manner.

That your particular bank acted in a financially responsible manner is anecdotal, and no way representative of anyone but your bank.

Your first argument gets debunked and you just keep trucking right along. ROFLMAO!!!!

 

[FireFly]

People do act rationally most of the time. The system was, expand home ownership beyond normal limits by offering homes to those who previously were unqualified. Mr. Franks pushed really hard for that through CRA. Then Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae pressured banks into making these loans. The risk was high, but with the insurance program in place, that risk was transfered to others. Everyone behaved as should be expected in an artifical environment created by the government.

This is a complete fallacy.

The problem was not that unqualified buyers got homes, the problem was that those mortgages were packaged and then rated incorrectly as far as risk and value went.

If those mortgages had been rated at the correct level of risk on the market, as opposed to all the ridiculous levels the Mortgage Derivatives were rated at, we would have never had a bubble and then a bubble crash in the first place.

The problem originated with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, where such derivative trading was made legal again after nearly 70 years of being illegal.

Thanks Republican Congress of 2000!

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did have a part to play in all this, as they were reselling some of the mortgages, but most of the trading and re-rating (approx. 75%) was done by private institutions.

You are full of shit! "Fannie and Freddie have purchased about 80% of all new home mortgages in the United States. Their combined investment portfolios held mortgage assets (loans and MBSs) valued at $1.5 trillion (as of June 30, 2008)" - These GSE will never pay back tax payer for losses like all the banks have. Source Also the GSEs Fannie & Freddie cost tax payers far more than all the bailed out banks combined. Because they were the biggest holders of bad mortgages. You need to stop reading dumocrat financial fiction stories & stick to the facts. Bill Clinton signed all the bills into law that caused this. See Link

 

[Vast LWC]

I keep seeing people in the media refer to regulation of Banks, etc, as a "Populist" issue, but it's really just a practical issue.

Wall Street needs regulation like a Nuclear Reactor needs shielding.

If you let it govern itself, it's going to explode in your face and take out everything for miles with it.

 

[FireFly]

I keep seeing people in the media refer to regulation of Banks, etc, as a "Populist" issue, but it's really just a practical issue.

Wall Street needs regulation like a Nuclear Reactor needs shielding.

If you let it govern itself, it's going to explode in your face and take out everything for miles with it.

Wrong - Bankers & wallstreet could not get the credit rating or leverage for these loans without the implicit backing of the US Government for these loans & back them we did with tax dollars. The GSE model is the root of the problem along with CRA, S.900 FSMA & H.R.4577 CFMA all signed into law by Bill Clinton. The great society started the GSE & social safety net shit rolling. I now know what Jeremiah Wright ment when he said Americas chickens coming home to roost.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Huh?

Do not the same human failings apply to the regulators as those in the markeplace?

No more or less than the same human failings and transgressions the police are meant to protect us from can be found in the police.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If the mortgages had been properly rated, they wouldn't have been written up in the first place.

Deregulation had nothing to do with that.

Certain regulation contributed to some of the bad loans.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

The "freewheeling" was done at the level of the creation of the mortgages the derivatives traders bought and sold, not anything that they did.

Try to keep up here.

That's like saying the Dutch "Tulip Bulb Mania" of 1637 was the fault of the tulip bulbs.

I wonder how many even know about that?

I saw a PBS program about that... Thousands for one bulb!

Tulips

 

[Vast LWC]

You are full of shit! "Fannie and Freddie have purchased about 80% of all new home mortgages in the United States. Their combined investment portfolios held mortgage assets (loans and MBSs) valued at $1.5 trillion (as of June 30, 2008)" - These GSE will never pay back tax payer for losses like all the banks have. Source Also the GSEs Fannie & Freddie cost tax payers far more than all the bailed out banks combined. Because they were the biggest holders of bad mortgages. You need to stop reading dumocrat financial fiction stories & stick to the facts. Bill Clinton signed all the bills into law that caused this. See Link

Nothing in your post proves your erroneous point.

Fannie and Freddy buy mortgages from other lenders and then sell them as large packages to private firms.

Thus at some point Fannie and Freddy probably did hold 80% of US mortgages, for a short time, but then resold them.

Thus my point that about 25% of the problem was caused by Fannie and Freddy, but the majority of the issue was caused by various private firms.

This takes into account the amount of mortgages they held, combined with the relative time they held them, and the relative amount of change to the worth of the securities during that time.

As far as your graph goes, the reason why Fannie and Freddy lost more taxpayer money than other firms is that they are Government-Sponsored Enterprises, and are insured by the Federal Government.

At least they were until after the huge losses, at which point the Government was issued controlling shares of their stock in return for bailing them out.

The taxpayer will in all probability eventually see a benefit from the deal. The S&L Crisis provides historical precedent for this assumption.

Private companies lost a lot more money in the form of losses in company stock to the tune of trillions of dollars in total. Bear Stearns would be a glaring example of this.

In addition, AIG was given hundreds of billions of dollars in money from the federal reserve to pay the insurance on bad securities to companies like Goldman Sachs, that aren't listed in your limited graph.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wrong - Bankers & wallstreet could not get the credit rating or leverage for these loans without the implicit backing of the US Government for these loans & back them we did with tax dollars. The GSE model is the root of the problem along with CRA, S.900 FSMA & H.R.4577 CFMA all signed into law by Bill Clinton. The great society started the GSE & social safety net shit rolling. I now know what Jeremiah Wright ment when he said Americas chickens coming home to roost.

The GSE model is certainly not the root of the problem.

And "signed into law by Bill Clinton" is a pile of crap.

Bill Clinton, as we all know, was a "lame duck" by the time the first of these legislations was introduced BY A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, in 1999, thanks to that same Republican Congress' ludicrous assault on Clinton, concerning a blow job.

There was no way Clinton could have got the votes to support a Veto from that Congress.

Saying it was his fault because he signed a legislation that Republicans created during that particular period is utterly ridiculous.