OK Truthmatters

[Toro]

TM

explain how it is NOT what I say it is?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999. The Act provided an 18-month deadline for the adoption of implementing rules, but from 1999 until 2005, the rule-writing effort stalled repeatedly. On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62541

Me

The Republicans were not primarily responsible for the Financial Crisis though, like the Democrats, they share some culpability. The Republicans were responsible for the deregulation that contributed to the crisis, but the Democrats were the primary guardians of the GSEs, which also played a role. However, IMO, the biggest culprit was the Fed because they have significant influence over the pricing of credit.

TM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html#vmessage62542

If the broker rules had BEEN IN PLACE this sub prime shit could not have reached the levels it did.


someday maybe you will; have the guts to talk about this right ion the board

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62545

First, I've talked about this on the board numerous times.

Next, yes the Financial Crisis still would have happened, though perhaps it wouldn't have gotten as big. Structures such as RMBS and SIVs increased demand, but the primary culprit in this is the Fed IMO for three reasons.

First, the Fed kept too much liquidity into the system. This created asset inflation as liquidity flooded into the mortgage and housing markets.

Second, because interest rates were so low, investors reached for yield and increased demand for the structures you mentioned. Had interest rates not fallen so low, institutions would not have demanded higher returns from more risky products. The Fed affects pricing across the interest rate curve by nailing down short-term rates, which drags down the long end of the curve if inflation expectations remain dormant. Lower mortgage rates mean cheaper mortgages which means more credit to pump up housing prices.

Third, because of Greenspan's repeated actions to bail out the financial system whenever it got into trouble, the market believed that he would do so in the future. This was known as The Greenspan Put. It led investors to increase the leverage on their investments, which contributed greatly to the forced liquidation that caused the implosion of the financial system.

I do think deregulation played a significant factor, but it was a minor one relative to the Fed. There is a long history around the world of financial deregulation and asset bubbles and collapses. This contributed to the crisis. But the reason why it almost certainly wasn't the primary factor was because there were housing bubbles around the world where structures and derivatives played a negligible roll.

Finally, there were many other factors, including the role of the GSEs, which is mainly at the feet of the Democrats. I think this is overblown by ideologues but it wasn't zero either. Other factors included excess savings in Asia which recycled back into the US mortgage market, fraud and people's own greed.

 

[Avorysuds]

First: TM is an "Impossible person." She/he/it has no interest in bettering themselves, they believe in “us VS them” at any cost.

God could come down from the heavens, lift TM into the clouds and then teleport her to another galaxy. While floating in space just above the largest sun in the universe, still alive due to "God-mode powers," God could announce to TM that she is in fact wrong and that the Party that he blindly follows too is wrong. TM's response would be to call God out as a red neck, white old Republican who hates the working class and their children, especially if they are a minority as well as pointing out how Gods policies are “historically failed” and caused a worldwide depression. Thus, to TM proving she is still somehow right.

Point of that story is that TM has no interest in accepting responceability for policies that she and her party have put in place that helped cause the meltdown of the economy. Tiny children do better with learning and thinking outside of their small bubble than TM does.


Secondly: People sound more and more like Ron Paul everyday!

Disclaimer: I am not religious, nor am I pushing God or that God is real, republican, white or would waste their time trying to educate matter in the universe that goes out of its way to de-evolve itself as TM has managed to accomplish several times in a single lifetime.

 

[boedicca]

I admire Toro's dedication and thoroughness, but tis a futile tossing of pearls before swine given the audience for his OP.

 

[Dot Com]

heres some info to mull over:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy | The Center for Public Integrity

 

[boedicca]

Please read up on Franklin Raines and his lobbying efforts to slacken lending standards, and then rethink your position.

 

[Avorysuds]

One simple fact, if Government were not involved with helping people buy homes none of this would have ever happened, ever... Of course to get to this point the constitution had to read as the polar opposite as the FF clearly stated, but hey it’s 2012 and what can’t the Government do now that the General welfare clause has officially replaced the constitution?

Serious question, what can’t the Government do?

 

[Avorysuds]

heres some info to mull over:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy | The Center for Public Integrity

lolz....

 

[Dot Com]

heres some info to mull over:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy | The Center for Public Integrity

lolz....

Did you read it

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity.

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy | The Center for Public Integrity

GOP.gov, the official website for Republicans in the House of Representatives, says flatly: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the main cause of the nation's current financial turmoil.” Many critics — including Republican appointees to the federal Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission — blame the two government-chartered mortgage underwriters for pushing lenders to make riskier loans and leading the way into the financial crash.

There’s a problem with this narrative: The numbers tell a different story.

The evidence indicates Fannie and Freddie contributed to the mortgage meltdown, but they played a secondary role to Wall Street. Wall Street firms and the mortgage lenders they bankrolled led the growth of the market for subprime loans and other risky mortgages.

 

[boedicca]

heres some info to mull over:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy | The Center for Public Integrity

lolz....

Oh.mi.gawd - the quote in our sig is just about the most vile Truthmatternot post EVAH!

 

[Dot Com]

I will defer to Toro because he is quite knowledgeable about this industry. Just wanted to add the bit about F & F being followers as opposed to leaders in the orgy of greed.

 

[syrenn]

heres some info to mull over:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy | The Center for Public Integrity

lolz....

Oh.mi.gawd - the quote in our sig is just about the most vile Truthmatternot post EVAH!

not sure what is worse... that or her calling HighGravity an oreo...

 

[Dot Com]

lolz....

Oh.mi.gawd - the quote in our sig is just about the most vile Truthmatternot post EVAH!

not sure what is worse... that or her calling HighGravity an oreo...

she doesn't pull her punches

 

[boedicca]

lolz....

Oh.mi.gawd - the quote in our sig is just about the most vile Truthmatternot post EVAH!

not sure what is worse... that or her calling HighGravity an oreo...

She's the appalling gift that keeps on giving.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why are we still trying to fix blame rather than focusing on solving the problem? The issue was too-low interest rates that made mortgage lending highly profitable. Period.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There were many factors...having said that, IMO if one was to place blame in as few places as possible, or in other words where most of the blame goes - it is these three:

Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman
Robert Rubin Sec. of Treasury under Clinton.
Larry Summers Sec. of Treasury under Clinton 99-01.
It is these three that set the stage.
I realize there are plenty of other players, but I believe these three have the most to blame.
(I should mention Larry Summers is perhaps the most corrupt man in Washington, and served/serves Obama in two capacities as an economic adviser which is just unbelievable considering the long list of questionable writings/opinions - as well as Summers was a KEY player in deregulation - and now advises Obama)

 

[boedicca]

There were many factors...having said that, IMO if one was to place blame in as few places as possible, or in other words where most of the blame goes - it is these three:

Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman
Robert Rubin Sec. of Treasury under Clinton.
Larry Summers Sec. of Treasury under Clinton 99-01.
It is these three that set the stage.
I realize there are plenty of other players, but I believe these three have the most to blame.
(I should mention Larry Summers is perhaps the most corrupt man in Washington, and served/serves Obama in two capacities as an economic adviser which is just unbelievable considering the long list of questionable writings/opinions - as well as Summers was a KEY player in deregulation - and now advises Obama)

You left Franklin Raines off the list. He is one of the main culprits.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There were many factors...having said that, IMO if one was to place blame in as few places as possible, or in other words where most of the blame goes - it is these three:

Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman
Robert Rubin Sec. of Treasury under Clinton.
Larry Summers Sec. of Treasury under Clinton 99-01.
It is these three that set the stage.
I realize there are plenty of other players, but I believe these three have the most to blame.
(I should mention Larry Summers is perhaps the most corrupt man in Washington, and served/serves Obama in two capacities as an economic adviser which is just unbelievable considering the long list of questionable writings/opinions - as well as Summers was a KEY player in deregulation - and now advises Obama)

You left Franklin Raines off the list. He is one of the main culprits.

Purely on the mortgage crises - you bet. Interesting to note - it is widely believed that Obama sought and received advice from Raines on mortgage policy - despite the fact they he cooked the books to ensure his bonus...twice.

 

[boedicca]

The mortgage crisis was the bubble that caused the financial crisis.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The mortgage crisis was the bubble that caused the financial crisis.

Not entirely, it was the bubble that caused the collapse of a market that itself was grossly over-valuated and over-invested.
The financial system was itself ripe for a fall - the mortgage crises was the half of it.

 

[Truthmatters]

TM

explain how it is NOT what I say it is?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999. The Act provided an 18-month deadline for the adoption of implementing rules, but from 1999 until 2005, the rule-writing effort stalled repeatedly. On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62541

Me

The Republicans were not primarily responsible for the Financial Crisis though, like the Democrats, they share some culpability. The Republicans were responsible for the deregulation that contributed to the crisis, but the Democrats were the primary guardians of the GSEs, which also played a role. However, IMO, the biggest culprit was the Fed because they have significant influence over the pricing of credit.

TM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html#vmessage62542

If the broker rules had BEEN IN PLACE this sub prime shit could not have reached the levels it did.


someday maybe you will; have the guts to talk about this right ion the board

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62545

First, I've talked about this on the board numerous times.

Next, yes the Financial Crisis still would have happened, though perhaps it wouldn't have gotten as big. Structures such as RMBS and SIVs increased demand, but the primary culprit in this is the Fed IMO for three reasons.

First, the Fed kept too much liquidity into the system. This created asset inflation as liquidity flooded into the mortgage and housing markets.

Second, because interest rates were so low, investors reached for yield and increased demand for the structures you mentioned. Had interest rates not fallen so low, institutions would not have demanded higher returns from more risky products. The Fed affects pricing across the interest rate curve by nailing down short-term rates, which drags down the long end of the curve if inflation expectations remain dormant. Lower mortgage rates mean cheaper mortgages which means more credit to pump up housing prices.

Third, because of Greenspan's repeated actions to bail out the financial system whenever it got into trouble, the market believed that he would do so in the future. This was known as The Greenspan Put. It led investors to increase the leverage on their investments, which contributed greatly to the forced liquidation that caused the implosion of the financial system.

I do think deregulation played a significant factor, but it was a minor one relative to the Fed. There is a long history around the world of financial deregulation and asset bubbles and collapses. This contributed to the crisis. But the reason why it almost certainly wasn't the primary factor was because there were housing bubbles around the world where structures and derivatives played a negligible roll.

Finally, there were many other factors, including the role of the GSEs, which is mainly at the feet of the Democrats. I think this is overblown by ideologues but it wasn't zero either. Other factors included excess savings in Asia which recycled back into the US mortgage market, fraud and people's own greed.

now tell me why you deny that allowing all of the sudden banks to sell securities for the first time since they crashed the banks in the pre FDR days by selling securities and then allow them to have NO regulations on who was a broker and how they were trained effected this whole system.

WHY do you refuse to address that issue?

The banks would NOT have been able to process the sub prime into the AAA securities and sell them to unsuspecting buyers if the brokers at the time had skin in the game to lose.

They could not say to their employer "I WONT SELL THAT BECAUSE I WILL LOSE MY LICENSE".

Instead they just did what their employer told them and trained them to do.

It takes alot of brokers to make all those sales.

the brokers woul;d have refused to maek the sales in an act of self preservation.


NOW please for once address these facts