Dismal earnings reports indicate the start of the Trump downturn

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yesterday it was OMG the downturn begins!!! Today the DOW shoots up 512.

But he wasn't basing it on the DOW when he talked about the downturn, you whiny idiot. Only a ******* moron would point at a one day gain and say it says anything about a trend. Hint: That's you, in this case. Mr. Zerohedge,and his zerohedge blogucation...get the fk outta here....

 

[Crepitus]

Obama bailed them all out for what was it a Trillion dollars. Goldman Sacs payee there money back because if the didn’t no bonuses You think you know what your talking about but you don’t. When I retired I went to work for a financial company doing Executive Protection and International Travel Securitry I know first hand what happened. So yes I do know what I am posting because I was there in the middle of it. So good luck because you talk shit but don’t know what your talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you talking about these Goldman Sachs liberals?

List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Trump’s Administration | Heavy.com

I’m going to listen to a liberal with some bullshit website when I was there for it All I will day is a know a lot more about it then you idiots. I will leave it at that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A bank guard. Yep. I'll stick with trhe websites

That makes all of it's ridiculous posts make much more sense. A person who is a guard at a bank went to high school but no farther. They have very little education and knowledge of economics or economic policy.

A person like me who has their degree in accounting & finance know what they're talking about. Economics courses were required for my degree.

I know it can be fun to help people like the one you're replying to make total fools of themselves but I just scroll right by their idiocy. They can't be taught truth or even the most simplistic economic concepts.

You're wasting your time.

Alexandra Occasional Kotex has an economics degree.

And what have you got? I mean it her than the ability to parrot some else's not to terribly original nicknames.

 

[Theowl32]

The funny thing is how the left tried denying that they are pissed that the economy has been doing great under Trump.

They are such despicable ******* losers.

 

[Staidhup]

Oh, so now A&F is a economic barometer for the NASDAQ, S&P, and DOW, Really?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Good news...for Trump and America....not so good for the loons

Dow Skyrockets After Chinas Abrupt Trade War Reversal Stuns Market

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The real cause of the 2008 financial crisis was the proliferation of unregulated derivatives during that time.

Bullshit.

Fannie Mae resells the mortgage in a package of other mortgages on the secondary market. This is a mortgage-backed security. Its value is derived by the value of the mortgages in the bundle.

An MBS isn't a derivative, it's a bond.
Turn a pile of mortgages into a pile of MBS, you still have a pile of mortgages.

An MBS isn't a derivative, it's a bond.
Turn a pile of mortgages into a pile of MBS, you still have a pile of mortgages.

Which derive their value from the underlying assets.

How Mortgage-Backed Securities Worked Until They Didn't

"Mortgage-backed securities are investments that are secured by mortgages.

"They’re a type of asset-backed security.

"A security is an investment that is traded on a secondary market.

"It allows investors to benefit from the mortgage business without ever having to buy or sell an actual home loan. Typical buyers of these securities include institutional, corporate or individual investors.

"When you invest in an MBS, you are buying the rights to receive the value of a bundle of mortgages. That includes the monthly payments and the repayment of the principal.

"Since it is a security, you can buy just a part of the mortgage. You receive an equivalent portion of the payments.

"An MBS is a derivative because it derives its value from the underlying asset."

"They’re a type of asset-backed security.

Right. Not a derivative.

"An MBS is a derivative because it derives its value from the underlying asset."

Wrong.

A derivative derives its value from something without actually being that thing.

5000 bushels of corn is not a derivative, it's an asset.
A futures contract on 5000 bushels of corn isn't actually 5000 bushels of corn, it
is a derivative that derives its value from the value of 5000 bushels of corn.

100 shares of IBM is not a derivative, it's an asset.
A call option on 100 shares of IBM isn't actually 100 shares of IBM, it is a derivative
that derives its value from the value of 100 shares of IBM.

A pile of mortgages, or a pile of MBS carved out of a pile of mortgages, is a bond.
Not a derivative.
A credit default swap that derives its value from the value of a pile of mortgages isn't a bond.
It isn't a pile of mortgages or a pile of MBS, it is a derivative.

An MBS is a derivative because it derives its value from the underlying asset."

Wrong.

A derivative derives its value from something without actually being that thing.

Exactly.
A MBS derives its value from a category of assets called mortgages; hence a MBS is a derivative.

Mortgage-backed security - Wikipedia

A MBS derives its value from a category of assets called mortgages

No, it's actually those assets shuffled around.

A piece of a bond is a bond.

Interest from an MBS is interest paid by the home buyer on his mortgage.

An options contract or a futures contract on a bond is a derivative.
A synthetic MBS created to mimic a portfolio of mortgages is a derivative.
The portfolio itself, no matter how it is divided, is still a bond.

The value of a derivative depends upon another underlying asset which in the case of a MBS is a pool of either CRE loans or residential loans.

The value of a derivative depends upon another underlying asset

I underlined your confusion.

 

[RealDave]

The DOW rose 258% during "Hussein`s" presidency. Orange Jesus has a lot of catching up to do. If he gets 2 terms the DOW would have to reach 61,000 to match "Hussein`s" accomplishments.

If he gets 2 terms the DOW would have to reach 61,000 to match "Hussein`s" accomplishments.

I don't know if you should call the weakest recovery since WWII an "accomplishment".

Ummmmm, wouldn't the worst economic disaster since WWII have the worst recovery?

Just asking, Mr Expert.

Only if you had the worst President doing the worst job.

Maybe we'd have done better if he added another 100,000 pages of regulations?
Maybe 200,000 pages?

Come on now. The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Pile on the housing collapse & near financial meltdown.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If he gets 2 terms the DOW would have to reach 61,000 to match "Hussein`s" accomplishments.

I don't know if you should call the weakest recovery since WWII an "accomplishment".

Ummmmm, wouldn't the worst economic disaster since WWII have the worst recovery?

Just asking, Mr Expert.

Only if you had the worst President doing the worst job.

Maybe we'd have done better if he added another 100,000 pages of regulations?
Maybe 200,000 pages?

Come on now. The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Pile on the housing collapse & near financial meltdown.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

 

[RealDave]

CRA forced lenders into mortgages, not buyers.

A drop in the bucket, regarding losses during the crash. You are barking up the wrong tree.

True. But many irresponsibly attempted to outreach their grasp. Shouldn’t have been allured in the first place. CRA led the way.

The CRA said, in their neighborhoods, had to use a percent of their profits to help those who could not afford a mortgage under standard requirements.

They were to lower the interest rate or down payment requirements. Borrowers HAD TO STILL SHOW THEY COULD MAKE THESE REDUCED PAYMENTS>

Under the CTR, there was no loaning money to people that could not afford it.

Will you ignorant fools get this.

The CTR did not cause the housing finance meltdown. It was the unscrupulous mortgage sellers & Wall Street.But nooooooooooooooooop. we can't regulate them because we all know we can trust corporations to do the right thing.

 

[RealDave]

Ummmmm, wouldn't the worst economic disaster since WWII have the worst recovery?

Just asking, Mr Expert.

Only if you had the worst President doing the worst job.

Maybe we'd have done better if he added another 100,000 pages of regulations?
Maybe 200,000 pages?

Come on now. The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Pile on the housing collapse & near financial meltdown.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

How???????

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only if you had the worst President doing the worst job.

Maybe we'd have done better if he added another 100,000 pages of regulations?
Maybe 200,000 pages?

Come on now. The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Pile on the housing collapse & near financial meltdown.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

How???????

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

How???????

Banks with loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan
will have larger losses than banks which do not have loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

No kidding. Many low and moderate income people didn't qualify for conforming loans.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The DOW rose 258% during "Hussein`s" presidency. Orange Jesus has a lot of catching up to do. If he gets 2 terms the DOW would have to reach 61,000 to match "Hussein`s" accomplishments.

If he gets 2 terms the DOW would have to reach 61,000 to match "Hussein`s" accomplishments.

I don't know if you should call the weakest recovery since WWII an "accomplishment".

Ummmmm, wouldn't the worst economic disaster since WWII have the worst recovery?

Just asking, Mr Expert.

Only if you had the worst President doing the worst job.

Maybe we'd have done better if he added another 100,000 pages of regulations?
Maybe 200,000 pages?

Come on now. The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Pile on the housing collapse & near financial meltdown.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

Except the feds were Obama's best friend. They kept interest rates at nearly zero for his entire 8 years. The first thing they did to Trump was raise them. And Trump is STILL setting records despite this.

There was a rumor yesterday that the feds might lower interest rates if the economy takes a hit due to Trumps tariff war and the stock market jumped over 500 points in one day. Imagine what the economy would do if the feds would treat Trump like they treated Obama.

 

[RealDave]

If he gets 2 terms the DOW would have to reach 61,000 to match "Hussein`s" accomplishments.

I don't know if you should call the weakest recovery since WWII an "accomplishment".

Ummmmm, wouldn't the worst economic disaster since WWII have the worst recovery?

Just asking, Mr Expert.

Only if you had the worst President doing the worst job.

Maybe we'd have done better if he added another 100,000 pages of regulations?
Maybe 200,000 pages?

Come on now. The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Pile on the housing collapse & near financial meltdown.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

Except the feds were Obama's best friend. They kept interest rates at nearly zero for his entire 8 years. The first thing they did to Trump was raise them. And Trump is STILL setting records despite this.

There was a rumor yesterday that the feds might lower interest rates if the economy takes a hit due to Trumps tariff war and the stock market jumped over 500 points in one day. Imagine what the economy would do if the feds would treat Trump like they treated Obama.

Keeping interest rates low is a common tactic in fighting recessions. The Bush Recession was severe. Quit blaming Obama.


.

 

[RealDave]

Come on now. The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Pile on the housing collapse & near financial meltdown.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

How???????

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

How???????

Banks with loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan
will have larger losses than banks which do not have loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

No kidding. Many low and moderate income people didn't qualify for conforming loans.

Your fallacy is that you assume that these loans would fail. You totally ignore that these people still had to show they could afford these lower cost mortgages.

A couple goes to the bank for a mortgage & they quite thern a $1000 a month payment after a 20% down payment. The bank reviews their finances & decline because they can't afford a $1000/mo payment nor have enough for a down payment.

Since they are in the bank's "neighborhood, the bank can lower the interest rates to get the monthly payments at $800 & a 10% down payment. The bank's review determines they can afford it & the couple buys a home.

No, where is the bank risk? Why is it more? They passed the bank's review?

All the CRA does is help people who just couldn't afford the standard rates but could with a rate reduction.

This is not a difficult concept, especially for an economic expert like you.

 

[RealDave]

Come on now. The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Pile on the housing collapse & near financial meltdown.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

How???????

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

How???????

Banks with loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan
will have larger losses than banks which do not have loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

No kidding. Many low and moderate income people didn't qualify for conforming loans.

Nopw you don't know what a standard mortgage is?

We are talking about a straight X amount per month, long term mortgage.

Not these interest free for 5 years with balloon payment type loans.

Are you really this ignorant?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

How???????

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

How???????

Banks with loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan
will have larger losses than banks which do not have loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

No kidding. Many low and moderate income people didn't qualify for conforming loans.

Your fallacy is that you assume that these loans would fail. You totally ignore that these people still had to show they could afford these lower cost mortgages.

A couple goes to the bank for a mortgage & they quite thern a $1000 a month payment after a 20% down payment. The bank reviews their finances & decline because they can't afford a $1000/mo payment nor have enough for a down payment.

Since they are in the bank's "neighborhood, the bank can lower the interest rates to get the monthly payments at $800 & a 10% down payment. The bank's review determines they can afford it & the couple buys a home.

No, where is the bank risk? Why is it more? They passed the bank's review?

All the CRA does is help people who just couldn't afford the standard rates but could with a rate reduction.

This is not a difficult concept, especially for an economic expert like you.

Your fallacy is that you assume that these loans would fail.

Loans to people with lower credit scores, lower incomes and lower down payments fail
at a higher rate than conforming loans.

Since they are in the bank's "neighborhood, the bank can lower the interest rates to get the monthly payments at $800 & a 10% down payment.

The bank is supposed to give a riskier borrower a lower interest rate?
What could go wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

How???????

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

How???????

Banks with loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan
will have larger losses than banks which do not have loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

No kidding. Many low and moderate income people didn't qualify for conforming loans.

Nopw you don't know what a standard mortgage is?

We are talking about a straight X amount per month, long term mortgage.

Not these interest free for 5 years with balloon payment type loans.

Are you really this ignorant?

Nopw you don't know what a standard mortgage is?

20% down, credit score of 620 or higher. DURR

 

[RealDave]

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

How???????

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

How???????

Banks with loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan
will have larger losses than banks which do not have loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

No kidding. Many low and moderate income people didn't qualify for conforming loans.

Nopw you don't know what a standard mortgage is?

We are talking about a straight X amount per month, long term mortgage.

Not these interest free for 5 years with balloon payment type loans.

Are you really this ignorant?

Nopw you don't know what a standard mortgage is?

20% down, credit score of 620 or higher. DURR

What are the payments? A fixed amount per ,month long term.

Funny how you left that out.

 

[RealDave]

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

How???????

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

How???????

Banks with loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan
will have larger losses than banks which do not have loans to low and moderate income people who would not otherwise qualify for a loan

Standard mortgages did not cause this.

No kidding. Many low and moderate income people didn't qualify for conforming loans.

Your fallacy is that you assume that these loans would fail. You totally ignore that these people still had to show they could afford these lower cost mortgages.

A couple goes to the bank for a mortgage & they quite thern a $1000 a month payment after a 20% down payment. The bank reviews their finances & decline because they can't afford a $1000/mo payment nor have enough for a down payment.

Since they are in the bank's "neighborhood, the bank can lower the interest rates to get the monthly payments at $800 & a 10% down payment. The bank's review determines they can afford it & the couple buys a home.

No, where is the bank risk? Why is it more? They passed the bank's review?

All the CRA does is help people who just couldn't afford the standard rates but could with a rate reduction.

This is not a difficult concept, especially for an economic expert like you.

Your fallacy is that you assume that these loans would fail.

Loans to people with lower credit scores, lower incomes and lower down payments fail
at a higher rate than conforming loans.

Since they are in the bank's "neighborhood, the bank can lower the interest rates to get the monthly payments at $800 & a 10% down payment.

The bank is supposed to give a riskier borrower a lower interest rate?
What could go wrong?

It may be lower profit but how is it riskier as far as failure?

 

[Faun]

Ummmmm, wouldn't the worst economic disaster since WWII have the worst recovery?

Just asking, Mr Expert.

Only if you had the worst President doing the worst job.

Maybe we'd have done better if he added another 100,000 pages of regulations?
Maybe 200,000 pages?

Come on now. The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Pile on the housing collapse & near financial meltdown.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

The worse the recession, the longer the recovery.

Especially when new regulations are being piled on.
Capital requirements are raised and raised again.
When banks are being fined hundreds of billions of dollars.

To do nothing to prevent another wall street fueled economic meltdown would have been really stupid.

I agree, all the requirements to make subprime loans or buy subprime mortgages should have been eliminated.
Regulations are basically written to plug loopholes.

And when the "loopholes" are previous regulations?​

When you start blaming the CRA, you conform your ignorance.

CRA played a part. The question is....how large a part?

6%