Who did what?

[Truthmatters]

They just are not interested in facts.

 

[Rocko]

"They forced private companies to loan sub-primes, so they can compete"

Gawd I love conservatarian logic.

unintended consequences.

please explain that for us. The private sector was forced to issue and bundle the 80%+ of defaulting loans that were offered outside FDIC regulations?

What regulations changed in the mortgage buisness that lead to all these bad loans?

Fannie and Freedie took market share away from private secter...They were, and are the biggest lenders.

The one argument that can be made over securities oversight, is leverage, which was not covered in Dodd Frank.

It wasn't writing securities or even credit default swaps that was the problem, these are instruments in the market, it was the artifical market, which was created by government institutions.

 

[8537]

unintended consequences.

please explain that for us. The private sector was forced to issue and bundle the 80%+ of defaulting loans that were offered outside FDIC regulations?

What regulations changed in the mortgage buisness that lead to all these bad loans?

Fannie and Freedie took market share away from private secter...They were, and are the biggest lenders.

First and foremoest, Freddie and Fannie are not lenders. They have never once issued a mortgage.

Second, Freddie and Fannie LOST market share as the subprime market grew. They lost 30% of their share. And they lost it to private firms that were offering bundles they could not - because FM and FM could only purchase conforming loans.

 

[Rocko]

please explain that for us. The private sector was forced to issue and bundle the 80%+ of defaulting loans that were offered outside FDIC regulations?

What regulations changed in the mortgage buisness that lead to all these bad loans?

Fannie and Freedie took market share away from private secter...They were, and are the biggest lenders.

First and foremoest, Freddie and Fannie are not lenders. They have never once issued a mortgage.

Second, Freddie and Fannie LOST market share as the subprime market grew. They lost 30% of their share. And they lost it to private firms that were offering bundles they could not - because FM and FM could only purchase conforming loans.

They issued loans.

Fannie and Freddie are still lobbying the government for bailouts...

What change in laws related to morgages lead to the colapse?

 

[8537]

What regulations changed in the mortgage buisness that lead to all these bad loans?

Fannie and Freedie took market share away from private secter...They were, and are the biggest lenders.

First and foremoest, Freddie and Fannie are not lenders. They have never once issued a mortgage.

Second, Freddie and Fannie LOST market share as the subprime market grew. They lost 30% of their share. And they lost it to private firms that were offering bundles they could not - because FM and FM could only purchase conforming loans.

They issued loans.

Fannie and Freddie do not issue loans. They are a secondary market participant only.

What change in laws related to morgages lead to the colapse?

No changes in law related to mortgages led to the collapse. Changes in the rules governing upstream derivatives and the financial sector played a part, though.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who did what?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJ4sjgtIR0]American Casino - YouTube[/ame]



Try to ask a tough-one, the next time......



*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKKvMJeBBSA]Q&A: Leslie & Andrew Cockburn - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Rocko]

First and foremoest, Freddie and Fannie are not lenders. They have never once issued a mortgage.

Second, Freddie and Fannie LOST market share as the subprime market grew. They lost 30% of their share. And they lost it to private firms that were offering bundles they could not - because FM and FM could only purchase conforming loans.

They issued loans.

Fannie and Freddie do not issue loans. They are a secondary market participant only.

your right, and their also a private instition, but they are funded by the government, and with the direction of the government, and the fed's monertary policy, operated to bring housing to more people, which is really the problem...

Without fannie and freddy, the housing market would be a lot smaller, hence more accurate housing market, more acurate securities market, less morgage back securities on the books of banks, less credit default swap for AIG, ect.........

 

[8537]

They issued loans.

Fannie and Freddie do not issue loans. They are a secondary market participant only.

your right, and their also a private instition, but they are funded by the government,

They received initial feed capital from the government, but until this crisis they had run without government support since that time - they are now accessing government support just like so many other financial institutions.

And I'm not sure how you determine the housing market "would be smaller". The demand for homes is driven by population. If you meant "it would be more expensive", you're probably right. We'd probably be without the thirty year mortgage, for instance.

 

[Texanmike]

Haven't watched the clips, but I'm pretty sure I already know what they say. And - working on that assumption - it's hard to dispute the facts of what happened.

Having said that, it would be remarkably easy to put up an equal number of clips showing the equally shameful behavior from the Republicans.

Both parties worked very hard to destroy this country's economy. And both parties should be held accountable. The shame of it is that posters on both sides are too damned partisan to do so. Have some spine - hold your own parties accountable.

I disagree on this. The Dems were largely responsible for lack of oversight on Fannie/Freddie. The Wall St Journal rann editorials on this lack of transparancy with Freddie probably 2 years before the crisis.
The GOP is not blameless in the economic debacle (Bush appointed Bernanke) but on Fan/Fred the fault is entirely with the Dums.

Haven't watched the clips, but I'm pretty sure I already know what they say. And - working on that assumption - it's hard to dispute the facts of what happened.

Having said that, it would be remarkably easy to put up an equal number of clips showing the equally shameful behavior from the Republicans.

Both parties worked very hard to destroy this country's economy. And both parties should be held accountable. The shame of it is that posters on both sides are too damned partisan to do so. Have some spine - hold your own parties accountable.

I disagree on this. The Dems were largely responsible for lack of oversight on Fannie/Freddie. The Wall St Journal rann editorials on this lack of transparancy with Freddie probably 2 years before the crisis.
The GOP is not blameless in the economic debacle (Bush appointed Bernanke) but on Fan/Fred the fault is entirely with the Dums.

True. They absolutely shoulder the majority of 'blame' for Fannie/Freddie. But, guess what, that was only partially responsible for the current clusterfuck. It took a concerted effort - by both parties (and a whole bunch of other greedy corrupt bastards) to get us to where we are.

In order to understand why we are here, how it happened and why.... people need to stop looking at parts of the issue and put all the pieces into the jigsaw. Why are people too scared to do that?

The Dems don't shoulder the blame. The voters do. We put the representatives in to represent us. We don't hold them accountable and then we get upset when their representation sucks. If we had held one person accountale in the last centruy and a half this wouldn't happen. We just don't do it. Show a few pictures of your D**K to someone and you're gone. Vote on bad policy? Meh, I'm not involved enough to be educated on that.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

Fannie and Freddie do not issue loans. They are a secondary market participant only.

your right, and their also a private instition, but they are funded by the government,

They received initial feed capital from the government, but until this crisis they had run without government support since that time - they are now accessing government support just like so many other financial institutions.

And I'm not sure how you determine the housing market "would be smaller". The demand for homes is driven by population. If you meant "it would be more expensive", you're probably right. We'd probably be without the thirty year mortgage, for instance.

Demand for homes is driven by population and the ability to pay.

The housing market shrinks because there aren't as may people able to buy a house. All of these houses aren't built. That is good for us because we have converted a lot of our wealth into houses for which there is no market. We should have let the market crash but hell no we're not doing that.


Mike

 

[Rocko]

Fannie and Freddie do not issue loans. They are a secondary market participant only.

your right, and their also a private instition, but they are funded by the government,

They received initial feed capital from the government, but until this crisis they had run without government support since that time - they are now accessing government support just like so many other financial institutions.

And I'm not sure how you determine the housing market "would be smaller". The demand for homes is driven by population. If you meant "it would be more expensive", you're probably right. We'd probably be without the thirty year mortgage, for instance.

Don't you think, if these institutions weren't influenced by the government, we'd have less bad mortgages?

The CBO estimates that Fannie and Freddie could need up to 400 billion in bailouts, some experts say they could cost us up to 1 trillion in direct tax payer bailouts.

 

[8537]

your right, and their also a private instition, but they are funded by the government,

They received initial feed capital from the government, but until this crisis they had run without government support since that time - they are now accessing government support just like so many other financial institutions.

And I'm not sure how you determine the housing market "would be smaller". The demand for homes is driven by population. If you meant "it would be more expensive", you're probably right. We'd probably be without the thirty year mortgage, for instance.

Don't you think, if these institutions weren't influenced by the government, we'd have less bad mortgages?

No, I think these institutions were far more responsible than their private-sector counterparts who bought and repackaged more than 80% of defaulting sub-primes.

The CBO estimates that Fannie and Freddie could need up to 400 billion in bailouts, some experts say they could cost us up to 1 trillion in direct tax payer bailouts.

Sure. They owned a lot of assets that lost value and they held the wrong end of a lot of swaps.

 

[Rocko]

OK, How about all those Fannie and freddie securities, and credit deafault swaps on fannie and freddie securities?

 

[8537]

OK, How about all those Fannie and freddie securities, and credit deafault swaps on fannie and freddie securities?

Fannie and Freddie purchased toxic securities just like everyone else. Why should that surprise anyone? Why would you expect them to do any differently?

They held the wrong side of some CDS's just like everyone else.

 

[Rocko]

OK, How about all those Fannie and freddie securities, and credit deafault swaps on fannie and freddie securities?

Fannie and Freddie purchased toxic securities just like everyone else. Why should that surprise anyone? Why would you expect them to do any differently?

They held the wrong side of some CDS's just like everyone else.

Yeah but 1 trillion in bail outs?? Seems to me like they were a little irresposible.

They owned almost 50% of all mortgages, they had to be affecting the morgage market somehow with their activity.

 

[The Rabbi]

please explain that for us. The private sector was forced to issue and bundle the 80%+ of defaulting loans that were offered outside FDIC regulations?

What regulations changed in the mortgage buisness that lead to all these bad loans?

Fannie and Freedie took market share away from private secter...They were, and are the biggest lenders.

First and foremoest, Freddie and Fannie are not lenders. They have never once issued a mortgage.

Second, Freddie and Fannie LOST market share as the subprime market grew. They lost 30% of their share. And they lost it to private firms that were offering bundles they could not - because FM and FM could only purchase conforming loans.

If you lend money based on real estate, you are a mortgage lender. Fan/Fred were not retail lenders, instead purchasing closed loans from retail lenders. It is a distinction without much difference.
Second, Fan/Fred controlled the market for Class A plain vanilla loans through their implied (which became actual) government guarantee. They published guidelines as to what they would buy. By the height of the bubble much of what they bought in reality was sub prime, as they had watered down criteria. Additionally they ahd an Alt-A program, which was sub prime.
The sub prime market was much smaller than conforming market, but margins were much much higher. When conforming loans were running about 7% I was making non conforming loans up to 12%. That wasn't high enough,btw.
But the biggest problem was Fan/Fred's accounting, which would have landed a private company in jail. The WSJ wrote many editorials on this subject long before the crisis.

 

[8537]

OK, How about all those Fannie and freddie securities, and credit deafault swaps on fannie and freddie securities?

Fannie and Freddie purchased toxic securities just like everyone else. Why should that surprise anyone? Why would you expect them to do any differently?

They held the wrong side of some CDS's just like everyone else.

Yeah but 1 trillion in bail outs?? Seems to me like they were a little irresposible.

400B to 1trillion when they allegedly owned half the market? Ya think the private sector cost more than 1 Trillion for their half? (hint: the answer is not yes)

They owned almost 50% of all mortgages, they had to be affecting the morgage market somehow with their activity.

Affecting the market? of course! You're assuming that they affected the market AND that you know how they did so because it fits the right's hunch. But can you explain how it affected the market?

 

[8537]

What regulations changed in the mortgage buisness that lead to all these bad loans?

Fannie and Freedie took market share away from private secter...They were, and are the biggest lenders.

First and foremoest, Freddie and Fannie are not lenders. They have never once issued a mortgage.

Second, Freddie and Fannie LOST market share as the subprime market grew. They lost 30% of their share. And they lost it to private firms that were offering bundles they could not - because FM and FM could only purchase conforming loans.

If you lend money based on real estate, you are a mortgage lender. Fan/Fred were not retail lenders, instead purchasing closed loans from retail lenders.

FM and FM don't loan money. They are not a bank, nor are they an investment bank. They buy and sell products.

Second, Fan/Fred controlled the market for Class A plain vanilla loans through their implied (which became actual) government guarantee. They published guidelines as to what they would buy. By the height of the bubble much of what they bought in reality was sub prime, as they had watered down criteria. Additionally they ahd an Alt-A program, which was sub prime.

yet the default rate on products they purchased was far lower than the rest of the sub market and they STILL only purchased 20% of those loans that failed.

 

[The Rabbi]

First and foremoest, Freddie and Fannie are not lenders. They have never once issued a mortgage.

Second, Freddie and Fannie LOST market share as the subprime market grew. They lost 30% of their share. And they lost it to private firms that were offering bundles they could not - because FM and FM could only purchase conforming loans.

FM and FM don't loan money. They are not a bank, nor are they an investment bank. They buy and sell products.

Second, Fan/Fred controlled the market for Class A plain vanilla loans through their implied (which became actual) government guarantee. They published guidelines as to what they would buy. By the height of the bubble much of what they bought in reality was sub prime, as they had watered down criteria. Additionally they ahd an Alt-A program, which was sub prime.

yet the default rate on products they purchased was far lower than the rest of the sub market and they STILL only purchased 20% of those loans that failed.

If you buy loans you lend money. I am not certain what part of that could be unclear.
They played in the Alt-A market--loans that were not good enough to be plain vanilla but at the top of the B/C market. Of course their losses will be less on those.
What point were you trying to make here?

 

[8537]

FM and FM don't loan money. They are not a bank, nor are they an investment bank. They buy and sell products.



yet the default rate on products they purchased was far lower than the rest of the sub market and they STILL only purchased 20% of those loans that failed.

If you buy loans you lend money. I am not certain what part of that could be unclear.

Well, the fact that it is wrong is what's unclear. You're buying a product from a person who sold the loan. You're not loaning money to that person or anyone else.

They played in the Alt-A market--loans that were not good enough to be plain vanilla but at the top of the B/C market. Of course their losses will be less on those.
What point were you trying to make here?

You just made it for me - they were not involved in packaging the most toxic assets.

Hard to blame one company for another company's decision to purchase and repackage bad assets.