The Glass-Steagal Act needs to be re-enacted and then some

[Full-Auto]

There wouldn't have been a collapse if the government didn't threaten banks into lending to unqualified borrowers in the first place, thus setting the stage for sub-prime lending.

Which never happened.

But heck..blaming the brown folks for the collapse..is mo' bettah then blaming fine upstanding citizens like John Thane and Dick Fuld.

That guy is a dickhead, how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans, mostly subprime loans when the banks were taking credit default swaps, an unregulated derivative, out on all these loans making money when the borrower defaulted?

how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans


Hey stupid go to you tube and use the tags cuomo and banks.

Then apologize for being stupid.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act and the refusal to regulate derivatives played major roles in the financial collapse in the housing market.

There wouldn't have been a collapse if the government didn't threaten banks into lending to unqualified borrowers in the first place, thus setting the stage for sub-prime lending.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

GS was repealed in 98. You really think that played a role 10 years later? Boy are you stupid.

Yes it did play a role fucktard, the housing bubble was a slow developing disaster.


10 Years Later, Looking at Repeal of Glass-Steagall - NYTimes.com

Ten years ago to the day, the government reversed one of the key elements of the Depression-era banking laws, knocking down the firewall between commercial banks, which take deposits and make loans, and investment banks, which underwrite securities. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was seen at the time as a way to help American banks grow larger and better compete on the world stage.

“Today, Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,” then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said at the time. “This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.”


But 10 years later, the end of Glass-Steagall has been blamed by some for many of the problems that led to last fall’s financial crisis. While the majority of problems that occurred centered mostly on the pure-play investment banks like Lehman Brothers, the huge banks born out of the revocation of Glass-Steagall, especially Citigroup, and the insurance companies that were allowed to deal in securities, like the American International Group, would not have run into trouble had the law still been in place.

“Commercial banks played a crucial role as buyers and sellers of mortgage-backed securities, credit-default swaps and other explosive financial derivatives,” Demos, a nonpartisan public policy and research organization, wrote in a report discussing the problems it said were caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

“Without the watering down and ultimate repeal of Glass-Steagall, the banks would have been barred from most of these activities,” Demos said. “The market and appetite for derivatives would then have been far smaller, and Washington might not have felt a need to rescue the institutional victims.”

But 10 years ago, the revocation of Glass-Steagall drew few critics. In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure, while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote.

One of the leading voices of dissent was Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. He warned that reversing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Republican-backed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a mistake whose repercussions would be felt in the future.

“I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010,” Mr. Dorgan said 10 years ago. “We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.”

Oh yeah. NYT. There's a credible source for you.

Yeah......let's HEAR IT!! for......

......John McBush!!!!

​

 

[The Rabbi]

Which never happened.

But heck..blaming the brown folks for the collapse..is mo' bettah then blaming fine upstanding citizens like John Thane and Dick Fuld.

That guy is a dickhead, how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans, mostly subprime loans when the banks were taking credit default swaps, an unregulated derivative, out on all these loans making money when the borrower defaulted?

how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans


Hey stupid go to you tube and use the tags cuomo and banks.

Then apologize for being stupid.

WRONG!
He needs to apologize for existing. He's using air that could go to better uses, like inflating my tires.

 

[Flaylo]

Which never happened.

But heck..blaming the brown folks for the collapse..is mo' bettah then blaming fine upstanding citizens like John Thane and Dick Fuld.

That guy is a dickhead, how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans, mostly subprime loans when the banks were taking credit default swaps, an unregulated derivative, out on all these loans making money when the borrower defaulted?

how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans


Hey stupid go to you tube and use the tags cuomo and banks.

Then apologize for being stupid.

No you fucking liar, show me instances of when the government threated banks into giving out loans, especially bad, subprime loans. The evidence is out there-in favor of my position of our course which I have posted, where is your evidence bitch?

 

[The Rabbi]

That guy is a dickhead, how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans, mostly subprime loans when the banks were taking credit default swaps, an unregulated derivative, out on all these loans making money when the borrower defaulted?

how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans


Hey stupid go to you tube and use the tags cuomo and banks.

Then apologize for being stupid.

No you fucking liar, show me instances of when the government threated banks into giving out loans, especially bad, subprime loans. The evidence is out there-in favor of my position of our course which I have posted, where is your evidence bitch?

Here ya go, asshole.
UPDATED: Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans | Media Circus

I await your apology.

 

[occupied]

Reinstating Glass Steagal would mean that all of the big banks would have to break into three parts and separate it's investment banking from insurance and consumer banking, not sure that is even possible anymore, in the case of citibank they had already been issued a waver before the act was even repealed so they could merge with travelers insurance so it is not the sole answer to our problem. The act also did nothing to regulate the exotic financial instruments that turned into worthless paper overnight and were among the major causes of the crash. A new set of regs is in order here.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans


Hey stupid go to you tube and use the tags cuomo and banks.

Then apologize for being stupid.

No you fucking liar, show me instances of when the government threated banks into giving out loans, especially bad, subprime loans. The evidence is out there-in favor of my position of our course which I have posted, where is your evidence bitch?

Here ya go, asshole.
UPDATED: Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans | Media Circus

I await your apology.

Aw, gee.......another conspiracy from a Ron Paul fan.

Who'd have guessed.....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act and the refusal to regulate derivatives played major roles in the financial collapse in the housing market.

There wouldn't have been a collapse if the government didn't threaten banks into lending to unqualified borrowers in the first place, thus setting the stage for sub-prime lending.

Which never happened.

I happen to work for a bank and I assure you, yeah, it did happen and it's still taking place. But hey, what would I know. I only work in the industry.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There wouldn't have been a collapse if the government didn't threaten banks into lending to unqualified borrowers in the first place, thus setting the stage for sub-prime lending.

This is total bullshit, the government didn't threaten any fucking body, keep throwing out partisan bullshit. In the old days before deregulation if a buyer wanted to buy a house he went to the bank and applied for a loan and if the buyer didn't qualify they didn't get a loan because the banks wouldn't take any risks on losing their money. With deregulation all the loans by buyers, even the subprime ones had a CDS taken out them which ensured that if the borrrower defaulted the banks would get their money regardless, so quit you lying bullshit about the government threatening banks into giving people loans, the banks wanted it that way you fucktard because they were getting rich off it.

I suggest you read up on the term "redlining." You don't know half of what you think you do. You're just an ignorant little twerp.

 

[occupied]

If banks had simply lost the value of the defaulted mortgages it would not have been so bad, especially for AIG, They had leveraged those mortgages for many, many times their value and insured this worthless paper against loss. By far the most damaging wave of foreclosures were not the poor people but the investors who walked away from investment properties, where does CRA figure into that?

 

[Dot Com]

I agree.

But why not just join a credit union and take away the bastards money?

Absolutely
Move Your Money Project

The Move Your Money project is a nonprofit campaign that encourages individuals and institutions to divest from the nation's largest Wall Street banks and move to local financial institutions. Little has changed to prevent another financial crisis or to end 'Too Big To Fail,' and with Congress unwilling to act, we are encouraging individuals to take power into their own hands by voting with their dollars and no longer contributing to a financial system that has led our country astray. We are a campaign that gives people real, concrete actions they can take to create a more sane, stable and localized banking system.

 

[merrill]

It does not matter what deregulation took place or who was pushing for more home ownership there was not written a word encouraging outright fraud.

Fraud was accomplished by those who chose to do so. It was overlooked by those who chose to do so.

The regulatory arm was under the jurisdiction of the GW Bush admin therefore enforcement was at the door of GW Bush. Keep this in mind.

Meanwhile:

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst. Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person). Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? | Dollars & Sense

 

[merrill]

People break laws because they want to. No matter what regulation is on the books. If the enforcement arm is not tending to business....

Elizabeth Warren spoke out on this activity so the Bush admin knew of it.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Redlining - Definition of Redlining

Redlining - Definition of Redlining


Definition: Redlining is against the law. It is a discriminatory practice, involving lenders which refuse to lend money or extend credit to borrowers in certain "struggling" areas of town. It is against the law to discriminate against borrowers based on race or income level, among other factors. Redlining became known as such because lenders would draw a red line around a neighborhood on a map, often targeting areas with a high concentration of minorities, and then refusing to lend in those areas because they considered the risk too high. Even though it is now against the law, some lenders today are still accused of redlining.



Now explain contards, how is fighting against redlining forcing banks into giving loans to unqualified people?

 

[g5000]

I see the CRA meme is still alive and well. It is perpetuated by parroting nimrods who don't know the first thing about financial derivatives.

When asked by Congress how much the CRA had to do with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, CEO Dick Fuld responded, "De minimus." But that did not puncture the delusions of the airheads who suffer from confirmation bias.

So let's drown these fools with some facts, shall we?

First, Lehman Brothers had bought its own supply chain in the secondary market. It was not dependent on the GSEs and it was not subject to any CRA requirements. The same is true for Bear Stearns, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. Not one of them was subject to the CRA. And these were the monster broker-dealers who created the CDOs, synthetic CDOs, and CDO-squareds that brought about the global credit crisis.

Some other banks and broker-dealers that brought about the global credit crisis that were not subject to the CRA: Deutsche Bank, Allied Irish Bank, UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock.

You won't find a single CEO of any financial institution anywhere on the planet blaming the CRA for their downfall. And, boy, they would love such a convenient scapegoat. But they would be laughed right out of business if they said something as stupid as that because no one in the investment world is THAT stupid. And that is really saying something.

CRA parrots haven't even noticed to this day that the credit crisis was GLOBAL. They are still stuck back in the old "sub-prime crisis" paradigm, with the focus on "sub-prime". This is actually a global credit crisis. Iceland, Ireland, England, Italy, Spain. All had real estate bubbles.

Speaking of "sub-prime" this is where CRA-heads are really weak. They haven't even noticed to this day that "sub-prime" does not equal "lower income" or "blacks". Middle class income earners were by far the larger part of sub-prime loans. And it is a fact that CRA loans had a lower failure rate than non-CRA sub-prime loans.

The people who repeat the CRA meme are completely ignorant of actual facts like these. But that does not stop them from making asses of themselves.

 

[g5000]

As I explained in another one of these topics, if the only problem was bad loans, we would not be in the big global mess we are in.

The problem is financial derivatives. They are a disaster force mulitplier, and they are what created the DEMAND for assets to put into them.

CRA didn't create the demand for shitty loans. Investors who wanted CDO products, and the broker-dealers who pimped them, did. This is a fundamental fact.

 

[KissMy]

Now that the new NDAA bill has become the law of the land, can we just arrest, torture & kill all the Wallstreet Bankers & government officials we believe are guilty without proof or trial? I bet if we did this enough one of 2 things would happen. These people would either hand over their plunder or they would get rid of that stupid law & give us our rights back.

 

[g5000]

how can the government "threaten" banks into giving people loans


Hey stupid go to you tube and use the tags cuomo and banks.

Then apologize for being stupid.

No you fucking liar, show me instances of when the government threated banks into giving out loans, especially bad, subprime loans. The evidence is out there-in favor of my position of our course which I have posted, where is your evidence bitch?

Here ya go, asshole.
UPDATED: Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans | Media Circus

I await your apology.

Underneath all the hyperbole in that link I see no evidence the lawsuit resulted in bad loans.

Nice try.

 

[The Rabbi]

No you fucking liar, show me instances of when the government threated banks into giving out loans, especially bad, subprime loans. The evidence is out there-in favor of my position of our course which I have posted, where is your evidence bitch?

Here ya go, asshole.
UPDATED: Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans | Media Circus

I await your apology.

Underneath all the hyperbole in that link I see no evidence the lawsuit resulted in bad loans.

Nice try.

Because that wasn't what the link was proving.
Learn to read, jerkoff.