Who did what?

[Rocko]

If Fannie and Freddie made great decisions, then when their mortgages were chopped, the securities would be worth something.

 

[8537]

If Fannie and Freddie made great decisions, then when their mortgages were chopped, the securities would be worth something.

Who said they made great decisions?

 

[8537]

Contradiction.
If they lost almost half their market share then they were obviously not chased out of the market.

No, if they lost half of their market share they obviously WERE chased out of the market - they got chased out of half of the mortgages.

It is irrelevant. Private lenders' mortgages were not guaranteed by the U.S. government. I really don't care if Countrywide's securitizations reached 20% default rates.

Oh really? Who ended up guaranteeing those and paying for them?

Now your'e going to define "chased out" as "lose market share."
Are you actually this stupid or is it an act online?

Yes, they were chased out of half their market.

And yes, you're actually this stupid offline.

 

[8537]

Well that's special my little racist friend. You'll be proud to know you're about the only neg rep I've ever gotten, mr internet tough guy.


what the fuck are you talking about? Of course they bought bonds. Buy a clue before you continue.



No, not at all like Countrywide. Countrywide originated mortgages. FM's did not.

Countrywide both originated mortgages and bought from other brokers. That Fan/Fred didnt originate their own is irrelevant to whatever point you think you are making.

You tried to claim that FM's make loans. Instead of admitting you're wrong, you decided to double down and attempt to defend your claim.

Please keep trying. Each time you try, you're exposed even more.

 

[8537]

So, it's only the loans that were originated that you have a problem with? Countrywide did plenty of refinancing too, and when they did refinance they became the lender, just like Fannie and Freddie.

No, no, no. FM's don't "do" refinancing. You can't refi through the FM's. The GSE's are not lenders, were not lenders and will not be lenders.

They don't lend money.

They buy and sell assets and securities. Their entire purpose was to provide liquidity to those that DO lend money.

 

[Rocko]

So, it's only the loans that were originated that you have a problem with? Countrywide did plenty of refinancing too, and when they did refinance they became the lender, just like Fannie and Freddie.

No, no, no. FM's don't "do" refinancing. You can't refi through the FM's. The GSE's are not lenders, were not lenders and will not be lenders.

They don't lend money.

They buy and sell assets and securities. Their entire purpose was to provide liquidity to those that DO lend money.

the buy the loans, and them pool them together, and secularize them, they own the loan.

The bank refinancing, takes over the loan, neither was the original loan provider, but both own the loan...no?

 

[Rocko]

After Fannie and Freddie buy the loans, who is the lender?

 

[jillian]

So, it's only the loans that were originated that you have a problem with? Countrywide did plenty of refinancing too, and when they did refinance they became the lender, just like Fannie and Freddie.

No, no, no. FM's don't "do" refinancing. You can't refi through the FM's. The GSE's are not lenders, were not lenders and will not be lenders.

They don't lend money.

They buy and sell assets and securities. Their entire purpose was to provide liquidity to those that DO lend money.

the buy the loans, and them pool them together, and secularize them, they own the loan.

The bank refinancing, takes over the loan, neither was the original loan provider, but both own the loan...no?

is that supposed to be english?

 

[Rocko]

No, no, no. FM's don't "do" refinancing. You can't refi through the FM's. The GSE's are not lenders, were not lenders and will not be lenders.

They don't lend money.

They buy and sell assets and securities. Their entire purpose was to provide liquidity to those that DO lend money.

the buy the loans, and them pool them together, and secularize them, they own the loan.

The bank refinancing, takes over the loan, neither was the original loan provider, but both own the loan...no?

is that supposed to be english?

my version yes, but surely you can understand what I'm trying to say, therefore if you don't have anything to add, then be a bitch somewhere else.

 

[8537]

So, it's only the loans that were originated that you have a problem with? Countrywide did plenty of refinancing too, and when they did refinance they became the lender, just like Fannie and Freddie.

No, no, no. FM's don't "do" refinancing. You can't refi through the FM's. The GSE's are not lenders, were not lenders and will not be lenders.

They don't lend money.

They buy and sell assets and securities. Their entire purpose was to provide liquidity to those that DO lend money.

the buy the loans, and them pool them together, and secularize them, they own the loan.

The bank refinancing, takes over the loan, neither was the original loan provider, but both own the loan...no?

No, but I can see where one might view it as such. There is a fundamental difference: A bank refinances a loan and creates a new loan product - defined by the terms of the refinance.

FM's don't originate new loans, nor do they originate new products in the form of refi's. They only buy both products post-origination. FM's are legally restricted from originating loans - they serve only to provide liquidity to those that do originate loans and refinances.

 

[jillian]

the buy the loans, and them pool them together, and secularize them, they own the loan.

The bank refinancing, takes over the loan, neither was the original loan provider, but both own the loan...no?

is that supposed to be english?

my version yes, but surely you can understand what I'm trying to say, therefore if you don't have anything to add, then be a bitch somewhere else.

no. i don't think i will. what you wrote is simply a means of shifting blame to suit a false preconceived notion. (which is all you're interested in doing anyway).

before anyone else can understand you, it seems important that YOU actually understand what you're trying to say.

or you can run around shrieking "fannie/freddie" til you turn blue. (which still will not make fannie/freddie a primary cause of the financial meltdown).

oh...and i could be wrong, but i think you mean "securitization".

 

[Rocko]

No, no, no. FM's don't "do" refinancing. You can't refi through the FM's. The GSE's are not lenders, were not lenders and will not be lenders.

They don't lend money.

They buy and sell assets and securities. Their entire purpose was to provide liquidity to those that DO lend money.

the buy the loans, and them pool them together, and secularize them, they own the loan.

The bank refinancing, takes over the loan, neither was the original loan provider, but both own the loan...no?

No, but I can see where one might view it as such. There is a fundamental difference: A bank refinances a loan and creates a new loan product - defined by the terms of the refinance.

FM's don't originate new loans, nor do they originate new products in the form of refi's. They only buy both products post-origination. FM's are legally restricted from originating loans - they serve only to provide liquidity to those that do originate loans and refinances.

after they buy the loan, who is the lender?

Have you ever heard of them being referred to as lenders?

 

[Rocko]

is that supposed to be english?

my version yes, but surely you can understand what I'm trying to say, therefore if you don't have anything to add, then be a bitch somewhere else.

no. i don't think i will. what you wrote is simply a means of shifting blame to suit a false preconceived notion. (which is all you're interested in doing anyway).

before anyone else can understand you, it seems important that YOU actually understand what you're trying to say.

or you can run around shrieking "fannie/freddie" til you turn blue. (which still will not make fannie/freddie a primary cause of the financial meltdown).

oh...and i could be wrong, but i think you mean "securitization".

So your also a psychologist, awesome.

 

[8537]

the buy the loans, and them pool them together, and secularize them, they own the loan.

The bank refinancing, takes over the loan, neither was the original loan provider, but both own the loan...no?

No, but I can see where one might view it as such. There is a fundamental difference: A bank refinances a loan and creates a new loan product - defined by the terms of the refinance.

FM's don't originate new loans, nor do they originate new products in the form of refi's. They only buy both products post-origination. FM's are legally restricted from originating loans - they serve only to provide liquidity to those that do originate loans and refinances.

after they buy the loan, who is the lender?

The lender is the firm that originated the loan. The entity that buys the asset is simply a repurchaser. If you want, for instance, to sue the lender you can't go after the purchaser - they are not the lender.

Have you ever heard of them being referred to as lenders?

They are incorrectly referred to as lenders all the time.

 

[Rocko]

No, but I can see where one might view it as such. There is a fundamental difference: A bank refinances a loan and creates a new loan product - defined by the terms of the refinance.

FM's don't originate new loans, nor do they originate new products in the form of refi's. They only buy both products post-origination. FM's are legally restricted from originating loans - they serve only to provide liquidity to those that do originate loans and refinances.

after they buy the loan, who is the lender?

The lender is the firm that originated the loan. The entity that buys the asset is simply a repurchaser. If you want, for instance, to sue the lender you can't go after the purchaser - they are not the lender.

Have you ever heard of them being referred to as lenders?

They are incorrectly referred to as lenders all the time.

They referred to as lenders because they buy debt, before they repackage the debt as a mortgage-backed security, they are essentially the lender....that's not a matter of opinion.

But fair enough, I do understand what you are saying....They are not primary lenders, and they act as a liaison, more than they are the one's actually lending...

I understand the intended purpose is to create liquidity, but the purpose changed over time, to including more people in the housing market, which is why the collapse was so difficult.

Same thing with the Fed...The Fed is a private institution that we are told is around to create liquidity....right?

A private institution that is concerned with something besides making a profit?

Now it seems like the Fed is more concerned with devaluing the dollar, so we can compete with countries like China, as well as making it cheap to lend money.

 

[jillian]

my version yes, but surely you can understand what I'm trying to say, therefore if you don't have anything to add, then be a bitch somewhere else.

no. i don't think i will. what you wrote is simply a means of shifting blame to suit a false preconceived notion. (which is all you're interested in doing anyway).

before anyone else can understand you, it seems important that YOU actually understand what you're trying to say.

or you can run around shrieking "fannie/freddie" til you turn blue. (which still will not make fannie/freddie a primary cause of the financial meltdown).

oh...and i could be wrong, but i think you mean "securitization".

So your also a psychologist, awesome.

you're not that complicated. anyone with your nic isn't meant to be taken seriously.

and how about answering the question. did you mean to say "securitization?

 

[Rocko]

no. i don't think i will. what you wrote is simply a means of shifting blame to suit a false preconceived notion. (which is all you're interested in doing anyway).

before anyone else can understand you, it seems important that YOU actually understand what you're trying to say.

or you can run around shrieking "fannie/freddie" til you turn blue. (which still will not make fannie/freddie a primary cause of the financial meltdown).

oh...and i could be wrong, but i think you mean "securitization".

So your also a psychologist, awesome.

you're not that complicated. anyone with your nic isn't meant to be taken seriously.

and how about answering the question. did you mean to say "securitization?

I think one as talented as you can easily conclude what I meant.

I do admit this though, the nic was a mistake, and was meant as a lighthearted joke...I would change it if i could, but it doesn't keep me up all night.

 

[Ernie S.]

Its propaganda

They just repete it to themsselves over and over until they believe it.

Then they wonder why others bother with all those other messy facts and reality.

POST OF THE DAY!!!
Geeze TDNM. You have described yourself to a tee. Do you ever wonder why you hold zero credibility with 95% of the people here? A little introspection might help.

 

[8537]

after they buy the loan, who is the lender?

The lender is the firm that originated the loan. The entity that buys the asset is simply a repurchaser. If you want, for instance, to sue the lender you can't go after the purchaser - they are not the lender.

Have you ever heard of them being referred to as lenders?

They are incorrectly referred to as lenders all the time.

They referred to as lenders because they buy debt, before they repackage the debt as a mortgage-backed security, they are essentially the lender....that's not a matter of opinion.

But fair enough, I do understand what you are saying....They are not primary lenders, and they act as a liaison, more than they are the one's actually lending...

I understand the intended purpose is to create liquidity, but the purpose changed over time, to including more people in the housing market, which is why the collapse was so difficult.

I appreciate the evenhanded discussion, thanks. The original charter of the FHA and the first GSE's was to provide liquidity to the housing market, but expressly so that more people could purchase homes (1930's-1950's). It allowed banks offer loan instruments they couldn't otherwise do - at the time, a home mortgage was typically a 5-15 year instrument requiring 50% down. The GI Bill and the FHA changed all of that.

In and of itself, I don't think it's necessarily bad policy. But both parties abused and underfunded the regulatory environment for 30 years.