regulation of the lending industry....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by manu1959, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    question to all the smart people here.....

    for the past three years all i have heard is bush deregulated the lending industry and caused this crash.....

    and

    obama will regulate the the lending industry.....

    now the dems have been in control of congress which writes all the legislation since 2006....

    so....

    can someone link me to:

    A: the laws bush signed deregulating the banks and lending....

    2: the laws obama signed regulating the banks and lending....

    thank you for you help....
     
  2. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    They can't.
    Lack of regulation didn't cause the economic problem. Regulation won't prevent other problems later on.
    The economic crisis is only an excuse for the big government types to push more control, which is all they are interested in.
     
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    Bush II AND Clinton AND Reagan administrations weakened the laws regarding banking.

    This is a bypartisan disaster.

    Lay down your partisan blinders, lad.
     
  4. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,782
    Thanks Received:
    11,059
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,112
    I am not of the opinion that Bush caused this crash, though I do believe deregulation in general contributed to the crisis, of which the Republicans were the biggest proponents.

    There are literally something like 60-70 examples around the world of deregulation contributing to or causing financial crises since WWII. That doesn't mean deregulation is necessarily bad - it often is very positive. But financial deregulation often creates excess credit, leading to a real estate bubble and an inevitable collapse.

    You can point to several examples of how deregulation contributed to the crisis.

    In 2004, the SEC waived capital requirement rules for the Big Five investment banks - Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. Up until then, banks had to maintain a leverage ratio of 12-15:1, i.e. $12 to $15 in debt for every $1 in equity. The banks made the argument that they knew how to police their business better than the regulators. So, along party lines, the SEC voted 3:2 to allow investment banks to increase their leverage. Firms then went to 30:1 or even 40:1, meaning that even if their assets fell by 3% or 4%, they were insolvent. That is exactly what happened when Bear Stearns and Lehman collapsed, and Merrill was forced into the arms of Bank of America. I am told that Morgan Stanley was technically insolvent as hedge funds and companies that requested their cash were told they couldn't get it. Goldman was days away from getting their lines pulled, meaning they wouldn't have been able to fund their operations in the repo market, and would have collapsed, which prompted the nationalization of AIG, as well as the creation of other government programs.

    (This is the same criticism of Freddie and Fannie. Free market ideologues like to blame the GSEs for the crisis but there is little empirical evidence that GSE-lending led to this. What is fair game is that both Freddie and Fannie were leveraged to the hilt, like the investment banks, and were systemic risks to the entire system. They too imploded for the same reasons as the investment banks.)

    Phil Gramm's 1999 Futures Modernization Act exempted some derivatives from the typical oversight of securities. (Signed by Clinton BTW.) This act shielded energy futures trading from scrutiny, called "the Enron clause" since Enron lobbied heavily for the exemption. (Fate loves irony.) It also exempted sellers of credit default swaps, or CDS. CDS is like insurance, where you pay a premium based on probability of default. In a typical insurance contract, the insurance company has to put aside reserves to cover future losses. How would you like it if you bought life insurance, you died and your wife couldn't get the money because it wasn't there? That's what happened with AIG. AIG was the biggest writer of CDS, insuring a wide variety of financial contracts and securities. But AIG did not have to put reserves aside, or if they did have to collateralize their obligations, it was very little. AIG was the lynchpin of the crisis because without their AAA-rating, many of these derivative structures could not have ever been created. And if the derivatives such as CDOs could never have been created, you would not have had massive demand for subprime mortgages. And if you did not have this massive demand for subprime mortgages, banks would have been under less pressure to lower lending standards. AIG was bailed out for a very good reason. The financial system was have collapsed if its obligations were not met.

    Regulators chose not to enforce many regulations on the books. Not enforcing current regulations is de facto deregulation. The Fed in particular turned a blind eye to egregious lending practices in the subprime market. Greenspan made several speeches praising mortgage "innovation" and actively dissuaded regulators within the Fed from limiting their application. The OCC invoked a 19th century law to override the states' abilities to enforce anti-predatory lending laws, making it easier for companies such as Ameriquest and Countrywide to jam shit down borrowers.

    There are more, but I have to hop.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2010
  5. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,423
    Thanks Received:
    12,698
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,855
    Bank deregulation has been the fault of both Democrats and Republicans and I believe your OP is misleading on who claims who is to blame...for the past three years all i have heard is bush deregulated the lending industry and caused this crash...Bush didn't cause the crash, however he did miss the warning signs.

    One thing that can be blamed on Bush/Republicans is that they took away the power of the states to enforce predatory lending laws on federal banks in their states.
     
  6. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Lack of regulation is not the same as deregulation
     
  7. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    1.Gramm Leach Bliley Act or better known as the Financial Services Modernization Act. This Republican sponsored Act repealed Glass Stegall Act which had prohibited any one financial institution from acting in any combination of investment bank, commercial bank and an insurance company.
    The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass Stegall since the 1970s.
    Gramm Leach Bliley passed with 53 votes in the Senate and 44 Democrats opposed.
    This Act directly caused the sub prime mortgage crisis. Nobel Prize winners in economics call Republican Phil Gramm "the father of the financial crisis".
    Another fact that you do not know Rabbi, but you should as you claimed that you were more educated than me,is that Gramm Bliley Act explicitly EXEMPTED security based derivative swap agreements from ANY regulation by the SEC. That horrible Republican backed exemption amended the Securities ACt of 1933 which protected consumers.
    This is what your Republican homies did Rabbi, this is the Republican wording in Gramm Bliley:
    "The SEC Commission is prohibited from promulgating, interpreting or enforcing rules, or issuing orders of general applicability, or measures against fraud, manipulation or insider trading with respect to any security based swap agreement".
    And you claim that "lack of regulation didn't cause the problem".
    Next time Rabbi come here with something, anything, to back up your claims. Your knowledge in this area is seriously lacking. You claim you are more educated than me in a previous post. I have a BBA with a minor in Finance and Tax Accounting as one of my degrees. However, this stuff is so easy a 5th grader can figure it out.
    Unless their mind is clouded with partisan ideology.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2010
  8. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    Rabbi is correct on this point and I believe it to be the most important point.
    Regulation is not the solution in most instances. Big government regulations, as proposed by the Obama administration with corporate limits in compensation and size in the financial markets, are as big, or bigger problem, than regulation.
    Too much regulation, a favorite tool of Democrats, freezes investment, the LIFEBLOOD of all financial institutions.
    However, "big governemnt types" have no party affiliation when it comes to politics, especially financial campaign contributions.
     
  9. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    If but ONLY the SEC had done it's job, this meltdown would not have occured to the degree it has.

    Yes, there were bad real estate loans.

    But they in and of themselves would not have melted down the economy.

    That took the dereviatives gambling and that demanded that the government NOT in ANY WAY regulate that activity.

    So it was a combination of regulations IGNORED (by Bush II admin) and regulations that did not exist (that happened on Clinton's watch...I think) to get us into THIS mess.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2010
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,268
    Thanks Received:
    14,920
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,074
    CRA requirements backed by Fannie and Freddie hunger for the bad paper caused the crash.

    Banks HAVE to comply with CRA or they can't do business and since they had a willing patsy in the US taxpayer as the ultimate recourse in FNMA And Freddie, yeah, sure, well issue all the bad paper you want.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2010

Share This Page