Obama Treasury Appointee Jack Lew: "Deregulation Didn't Cause the Financial Crisis"

[Dugdale_Jukes]

With all due respect despite your lack of understanding of derivatives (do you understand what "unsecured" means and how it connects [not] to underlying value, do you? ) - sincere respect - derivatives hammered a bunch of half-smart pretenders as well as fools playing with fire who didn't understand the nominal can become the real when specificly defined amounts of shit are in the fan - someone who isn't going to get fooled again likely has enough going on to find basic details on the major state and local derivatives fiascos.

Another interesting one is some halfwit nutball county in Alabama was probably trying to sell poor children to the Arabs to pay back before they figured it out they could declare bankruptcy and make OTHER suckers eat the part of the bad bet bankers could pass on. Examples of hilariously IR- "rational" risk management by state and local geniatti are all over the map is my point.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

market share........



market share.....

that in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market

Considering that that is their business, of course they were heavily involved.
In fact, they were so heavily involved in the MBS market, that they've lost over $100 billion of taxpayer money.

please, don't let any facts get in the way

I'm pretty sure that combined, in 2003, Fannie and Freddie issued over $2 trillion worth of MBS. Does that fact mean they were "heavily involved"?

jesus christ, do you have issues with comprehension?

market share........market share.....

reading and comprehension issues?

the link has a graph and more... Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

(Note, however, that in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market. They were actually losing market share to private banks, as the chart on right from researchers at the University of North Carolina shows.)

The broader argument, meanwhile, is that Democrats like Barney Frank actually helped create the crisis by pushing the government to expand its affordable-housing programs. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has made a version of this argument: Congress forced banks to make shoddy loans to people who couldn’t afford them, and that caused the subprime meltdown. But it’s not true. Barry Ritholz has dubbed this argument “The Big Lie.” And disproving it simply requires a few graphs.

Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

But what if we focus solely on the United States? As it turns out, not only were Fannie and Freddie late in getting into the subprime game, but they remained a bit player in the whole affair. According to a Federal Reserve study, more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lenders:

What’s more, only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable-housing laws. For the most part, private firms such as Countrywide Financial were issuing “nontraditional” mortgages in order to package them off to Wall Street and make money, not to please Barney Frank. Like most policymakers, Frank didn’t appear to see the housing bubble or looming subprime crisis before it was too late. But he didn’t cause them, either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

market share........



market share.....

please, don't let any facts get in the way

I'm pretty sure that combined, in 2003, Fannie and Freddie issued over $2 trillion worth of MBS. Does that fact mean they were "heavily involved"?

jesus christ, do you have issues with comprehension?

market share........market share.....

reading and comprehension issues?

the link has a graph and more... Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

(Note, however, that in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market. They were actually losing market share to private banks, as the chart on right from researchers at the University of North Carolina shows.)

The broader argument, meanwhile, is that Democrats like Barney Frank actually helped create the crisis by pushing the government to expand its affordable-housing programs. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has made a version of this argument: Congress forced banks to make shoddy loans to people who couldn’t afford them, and that caused the subprime meltdown. But it’s not true. Barry Ritholz has dubbed this argument “The Big Lie.” And disproving it simply requires a few graphs.

Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

But what if we focus solely on the United States? As it turns out, not only were Fannie and Freddie late in getting into the subprime game, but they remained a bit player in the whole affair. According to a Federal Reserve study, more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lenders:

What’s more, only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable-housing laws. For the most part, private firms such as Countrywide Financial were issuing “nontraditional” mortgages in order to package them off to Wall Street and make money, not to please Barney Frank. Like most policymakers, Frank didn’t appear to see the housing bubble or looming subprime crisis before it was too late. But he didn’t cause them, either.

$2 trillion and over 60% market share in 2003.
Damn, did you even make it to middle school math. LOL!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

$2 trillion and over 60% market share in 2003.
Damn, did you even make it to middle school math. LOL!

(Note, however, that in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market. They were actually losing market share to private banks, as the chart on right from researchers at the University of North Carolina shows.)

Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You may have missed Matt Phillips massive read Friday afternoon on the GSEs in the WSJ blog Marketbeat. http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/02/11/fannie-and-freddie-the-saga-in-charts/

The entire piece is definitely worth your time, but I found one chart especially compelling: It shows Fannie & Freddie’s market share plummeting from over 70% to under 40%, as Wall Street securitized all manner of non-conforming mortgages:

There is no way to reconcile this chart with the jihadist blatherings of folks like AEI and CATO.

The facts of the matter are simply this: During the housing boom, it was Wall Street, and their mad purchases of Sub-Prime, Alt A and non conforming loans for their privately issued securitization that drove the credit bubble. Not, as the ideologically blinded Peter Wallison claims, Fannie & Freddie.

Class dismissed.

poor Toddschtupe

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$2 trillion and over 60% market share in 2003.
Damn, did you even make it to middle school math. LOL!

(Note, however, that in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market. They were actually losing market share to private banks, as the chart on right from researchers at the University of North Carolina shows.)

Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

They issued over $2 trillion worth of MBS in 2003 and you claim they weren't heavily involved?
Talk about comprehension issues. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You may have missed Matt Phillips massive read Friday afternoon on the GSEs in the WSJ blog Marketbeat. Fannie and Freddie: The Saga in Charts. - MarketBeat - WSJ

The entire piece is definitely worth your time, but I found one chart especially compelling: It shows Fannie & Freddie’s market share plummeting from over 70% to under 40%, as Wall Street securitized all manner of non-conforming mortgages:

There is no way to reconcile this chart with the jihadist blatherings of folks like AEI and CATO.

The facts of the matter are simply this: During the housing boom, it was Wall Street, and their mad purchases of Sub-Prime, Alt A and non conforming loans for their privately issued securitization that drove the credit bubble. Not, as the ideologically blinded Peter Wallison claims, Fannie & Freddie.

Class dismissed.

poor Toddschtupe

Even at their lowest level, 40% market share, only a moron would claim 40% is not heavily involved.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

poor Toddschtupe,,,jumping back and forth between market share and gross amounts...


fail

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

poor Toddschtupe,,,jumping back and forth between market share and gross amounts...


fail

Both measurements show they were heavily involved in the MBS market.

in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market

LOL! Still funny.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Excellent chart, great summary, Dante. No question privately issued "securitization" drove the bubble.

My questions are about how much bogus paper was housing and how much was currency bets. A lot of wannabes were aping Soros and made news on their way to jail.

When the truth is known my money says more of the total $570T was currency bets than global housing, but until unredacted complete records of the period are made public there is no way to know.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

poor Toddschtupe,,,jumping back and forth between market share and gross amounts...


fail

Both measurements show they were heavily involved in the MBS market.

in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market

LOL! Still funny.

all things being relative...you're an imbecile

 

[ReallyMeow]

Many factors directly and indirectly caused the ongoing 2007–2012 global financial crisis (which started with the US subprime mortgage crisis), with experts placing different weights upon particular causes.

The crisis resulted from a combination of complex factors, including easy credit conditions during the 2002–2008 period that encouraged high-risk lending and borrowing practices; international trade imbalances; real-estate bubbles that have since burst; fiscal policy choices related to government revenues and expenses; and approaches used by nations to bail out troubled banking industries and private bondholders, assuming private debt burdens or socializing losses. [1][2]

One narrative describing the causes of the crisis begins with the significant increase in savings available for investment during the 2000–2007 period when the global pool of fixed-income securities increased from approximately $36 trillion in 2000 to $70 trillion by 2007. This "Giant Pool of Money" increased as savings from high-growth developing nations entered global capital markets. Investors searching for higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds sought alternatives globally.[3]

Causes of the 2007?2012 global financial crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[13] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the EU, the UK responded with austerity measures of spending cuts and tax increases without export growth and it has since slid into a double-dip recession.[14][15]

Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[16] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report asserted that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[17] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.[18] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[19] Research into the causes of the financial crisis has also focused on the role of interest rate spreads.[

Financial crisis of 2007?2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all liberal lies since it ignores that obvious fact that most of the liberal government was organized to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. At the very heart of it was the deliberate Fed policy to print the money that made it possible to buy and bid up the prices of homes. It was a typical liberal stimulus without which nothing could have happened

dubya is a liberal now?
American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

poor Toddschtupe,,,jumping back and forth between market share and gross amounts...


fail

Both measurements show they were heavily involved in the MBS market.

in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market

LOL! Still funny.

all things being relative...you're an imbecile

$2 trillion not heavily involved? Moron.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

poor toddssschtupe

lisping away and unclear on concepts too?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market

Poor Dunce. Big numbers make his head hurt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent chart, great summary, Dante. No question privately issued "securitization" drove the bubble.

My questions are about how much bogus paper was housing and how much was currency bets. A lot of wannabes were aping Soros and made news on their way to jail.

When the truth is known my money says more of the total $570T was currency bets than global housing, but until unredacted complete records of the period are made public there is no way to know.

When the truth is known my money says more of the total $570T was currency bets than global housing,

The nominal was much, much higher than $570 trillion.
Most was interest rate swaps.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Both measurements show they were heavily involved in the MBS market.

in 2003, Fannie and Freddie weren’t yet heavily involved in the mortgage-backed security market

LOL! Still funny.

all things being relative...you're an imbecile

$2 trillion not heavily involved? Moron.

yes Fanny Freddie were the market. What they did control directly they controlled indirectly. They were the liberal elephant in the room. They had the clout and the government guarantee so they got the best stuff and thus forced all the others to create more and more junk.

Its all in "Reckless Endangerment" the definitive look at Fan/Fred