OK Truthmatters

[Avorysuds]

LOL, have any of you seen or remember when TM has apologized for being wrong with her own OP then later in the same thread RE-TAKE the position she apologized for being wrong on and attack people.... again? I do, lol.


COLD HARD FACTS!!!!

go get it BUT start a new thread about it .

This thread is about the Bush SEC and the broker rules

No that's not what this thread is about.

/Owned

 

[boedicca]

You just contridicted your self you idiot

This post makes babies Strunk and White cry.

 

[freedombecki]

I have NEVER had one con truely address these cold hard facts.

you know why?

because they cant

That's because when anyone answers your 'question,' your comeback is something like this: "STFU, donny!"

Thanks for the pure entertainment run, TM.

 

[boedicca]

I have NEVER had one con truely address these cold hard facts.

you know why?

because they cant

That's because when anyone answers your 'question,' your comeback is something like this: "STFU, donny!"

Thanks for the pure entertainment run, TM.

It would be entertaining if it weren't so "one note". The same episode over and over again makes for a dull time. The only respite is when TMN has a total meltdown. Those are Hysterical.

 

[Truthmatters]

I see still not one answer except the "your a poopy pants" chorus.


Not one of you can explain this away.

that is because you dont even understand how you have been USED by the weathy in thisw country

 

[Truthmatters]

why is it after YEARS of me asking this question no one on ANY side can explain WHY the Bush people fought these perfectly legal American laws?

Why do you feel broker regs would have done anything to prevent the financial bubble?

I will explain it YET again.


Before Gramm leach bliely act of 1999 banks COULD NOT sell securities.


after the bill was signed into law banks could sell securities.


The gramm leach bliely act had rules on WHO could be a broker of these securities.

In the past brokers had to have licenses.

Because the Securities and exchanges commitee ( SEC) which had a head appointed by Bush (Mr Cox) the SEC unders Bush fought back the implimentation of these broker rules.

This meant that the banks could all of the sudden sell securities and had NO rules covering who could be a broker and wether they had to act in a manner that was honest to keep their licsense from being revoked.

Now the banks could hire whomever they wanted to be a broker and train them however they wanted to train them.

These NEW brokers were under NO pressure to make sure their dealings met a certain level of honesty so they could retain their licsense.


The only ones they had to obey were their bank employers.


They did what they were told to do so they could keep their jobs.


IF they had to have a liscence to upkeep they would have told the banks NO when they told them to sell sub prime tainted securities to unsuspecting investors.


If they had said yes they would have risked jail and losing their licsence which would mean they would lose their jobs.


The little guy would have rebelled to save himself.

without the rules the little guy could only save themselves by doing the bidding of the boss.


The banks were making big money by hiding their sub prime from securities investors.


Its why they wrote so many even though they were NOT required to by law.


they were making money by cheating.

Look at the law suits.


with no broker rules there was NO way to keep these banks from doing this cheating.



That is what the Bush people wanted.

unfettered markets by gaming our LAWS.

they got their unfettered markets and we the people got what unfettered markets always produce.


a mountain of shit

 

[Sallow]

TM


http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62541

Me


TM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html#vmessage62542



http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62545

First, I've talked about this on the board numerous times.

Next, yes the Financial Crisis still would have happened, though perhaps it wouldn't have gotten as big. Structures such as RMBS and SIVs increased demand, but the primary culprit in this is the Fed IMO for three reasons.

First, the Fed kept too much liquidity into the system. This created asset inflation as liquidity flooded into the mortgage and housing markets.

Second, because interest rates were so low, investors reached for yield and increased demand for the structures you mentioned. Had interest rates not fallen so low, institutions would not have demanded higher returns from more risky products. The Fed affects pricing across the interest rate curve by nailing down short-term rates, which drags down the long end of the curve if inflation expectations remain dormant. Lower mortgage rates mean cheaper mortgages which means more credit to pump up housing prices.

Third, because of Greenspan's repeated actions to bail out the financial system whenever it got into trouble, the market believed that he would do so in the future. This was known as The Greenspan Put. It led investors to increase the leverage on their investments, which contributed greatly to the forced liquidation that caused the implosion of the financial system.

I do think deregulation played a significant factor, but it was a minor one relative to the Fed. There is a long history around the world of financial deregulation and asset bubbles and collapses. This contributed to the crisis. But the reason why it almost certainly wasn't the primary factor was because there were housing bubbles around the world where structures and derivatives played a negligible roll.

Finally, there were many other factors, including the role of the GSEs, which is mainly at the feet of the Democrats. I think this is overblown by ideologues but it wasn't zero either. Other factors included excess savings in Asia which recycled back into the US mortgage market, fraud and people's own greed.

WHY did the Bush SEC hold back the broker rules for 8 long years?

what was the impact of doing so on the sub prime securities market?


toro never answers this

what was the impact of doing so on the sub prime securities market?


Minimal if any.

 

[Truthmatters]

TM

explain how it is NOT what I say it is?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999. The Act provided an 18-month deadline for the adoption of implementing rules, but from 1999 until 2005, the rule-writing effort stalled repeatedly. On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62541

Me

The Republicans were not primarily responsible for the Financial Crisis though, like the Democrats, they share some culpability. The Republicans were responsible for the deregulation that contributed to the crisis, but the Democrats were the primary guardians of the GSEs, which also played a role. However, IMO, the biggest culprit was the Fed because they have significant influence over the pricing of credit.

TM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html#vmessage62542

If the broker rules had BEEN IN PLACE this sub prime shit could not have reached the levels it did.


someday maybe you will; have the guts to talk about this right ion the board

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62545

First, I've talked about this on the board numerous times.

Next, yes the Financial Crisis still would have happened, though perhaps it wouldn't have gotten as big. Structures such as RMBS and SIVs increased demand, but the primary culprit in this is the Fed IMO for three reasons.

First, the Fed kept too much liquidity into the system. This created asset inflation as liquidity flooded into the mortgage and housing markets.

Second, because interest rates were so low, investors reached for yield and increased demand for the structures you mentioned. Had interest rates not fallen so low, institutions would not have demanded higher returns from more risky products. The Fed affects pricing across the interest rate curve by nailing down short-term rates, which drags down the long end of the curve if inflation expectations remain dormant. Lower mortgage rates mean cheaper mortgages which means more credit to pump up housing prices.

Third, because of Greenspan's repeated actions to bail out the financial system whenever it got into trouble, the market believed that he would do so in the future. This was known as The Greenspan Put. It led investors to increase the leverage on their investments, which contributed greatly to the forced liquidation that caused the implosion of the financial system.

I do think deregulation played a significant factor, but it was a minor one relative to the Fed. There is a long history around the world of financial deregulation and asset bubbles and collapses. This contributed to the crisis. But the reason why it almost certainly wasn't the primary factor was because there were housing bubbles around the world where structures and derivatives played a negligible roll.

Finally, there were many other factors, including the role of the GSEs, which is mainly at the feet of the Democrats. I think this is overblown by ideologues but it wasn't zero either. Other factors included excess savings in Asia which recycled back into the US mortgage market, fraud and people's own greed.

why do you refuse to address the real question.


what do you know about these broker rules the Bush admin held back for 8 long years?


the very same years that this mess was created.

then in 2007 they finally put them in place and Poof the whole thing came down on our heads.

 

[Toro]

TM

explain how it is NOT what I say it is?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999. The Act provided an 18-month deadline for the adoption of implementing rules, but from 1999 until 2005, the rule-writing effort stalled repeatedly. On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62541

Me


TM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html#vmessage62542

If the broker rules had BEEN IN PLACE this sub prime shit could not have reached the levels it did.


someday maybe you will; have the guts to talk about this right ion the board

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62545

First, I've talked about this on the board numerous times.

Next, yes the Financial Crisis still would have happened, though perhaps it wouldn't have gotten as big. Structures such as RMBS and SIVs increased demand, but the primary culprit in this is the Fed IMO for three reasons.

First, the Fed kept too much liquidity into the system. This created asset inflation as liquidity flooded into the mortgage and housing markets.

Second, because interest rates were so low, investors reached for yield and increased demand for the structures you mentioned. Had interest rates not fallen so low, institutions would not have demanded higher returns from more risky products. The Fed affects pricing across the interest rate curve by nailing down short-term rates, which drags down the long end of the curve if inflation expectations remain dormant. Lower mortgage rates mean cheaper mortgages which means more credit to pump up housing prices.

Third, because of Greenspan's repeated actions to bail out the financial system whenever it got into trouble, the market believed that he would do so in the future. This was known as The Greenspan Put. It led investors to increase the leverage on their investments, which contributed greatly to the forced liquidation that caused the implosion of the financial system.

I do think deregulation played a significant factor, but it was a minor one relative to the Fed. There is a long history around the world of financial deregulation and asset bubbles and collapses. This contributed to the crisis. But the reason why it almost certainly wasn't the primary factor was because there were housing bubbles around the world where structures and derivatives played a negligible roll.

Finally, there were many other factors, including the role of the GSEs, which is mainly at the feet of the Democrats. I think this is overblown by ideologues but it wasn't zero either. Other factors included excess savings in Asia which recycled back into the US mortgage market, fraud and people's own greed.

why do you refuse to address the real question.


what do you know about these broker rules the Bush admin held back for 8 long years?


the very same years that this mess was created.

then in 2007 they finally put them in place and Poof the whole thing came down on our heads.

That I answered the way I did demonstrates I understand the issue What you refer to did not cause the Financial Crisis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why is it after YEARS of me asking this question no one on ANY side can explain WHY the Bush people fought these perfectly legal American laws?

Why do you feel broker regs would have done anything to prevent the financial bubble?

I will explain it YET again.


Before Gramm leach bliely act of 1999 banks COULD NOT sell securities.


after the bill was signed into law banks could sell securities.


The gramm leach bliely act had rules on WHO could be a broker of these securities.

In the past brokers had to have licenses.

Because the Securities and exchanges commitee ( SEC) which had a head appointed by Bush (Mr Cox) the SEC unders Bush fought back the implimentation of these broker rules.

This meant that the banks could all of the sudden sell securities and had NO rules covering who could be a broker and wether they had to act in a manner that was honest to keep their licsense from being revoked.

Now the banks could hire whomever they wanted to be a broker and train them however they wanted to train them.

These NEW brokers were under NO pressure to make sure their dealings met a certain level of honesty so they could retain their licsense.


The only ones they had to obey were their bank employers.


They did what they were told to do so they could keep their jobs.


IF they had to have a liscence to upkeep they would have told the banks NO when they told them to sell sub prime tainted securities to unsuspecting investors.


If they had said yes they would have risked jail and losing their licsence which would mean they would lose their jobs.


The little guy would have rebelled to save himself.

without the rules the little guy could only save themselves by doing the bidding of the boss.


The banks were making big money by hiding their sub prime from securities investors.


Its why they wrote so many even though they were NOT required to by law.


they were making money by cheating.

Look at the law suits.


with no broker rules there was NO way to keep these banks from doing this cheating.



That is what the Bush people wanted.

unfettered markets by gaming our LAWS.

they got their unfettered markets and we the people got what unfettered markets always produce.


a mountain of shit

Before Gramm leach bliely act of 1999 banks COULD NOT sell securities.

So what? We managed to build an internet bubble without banks selling securities, we would have still had a mortgage bubble without banks selling securities.

IF they had to have a liscence to upkeep they would have told the banks NO when they told them to sell sub prime tainted securities to unsuspecting investors.

What about securities that weren't subprime?

 

[Truthmatters]

TM


http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62541

Me


TM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html#vmessage62542



http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62545

First, I've talked about this on the board numerous times.

Next, yes the Financial Crisis still would have happened, though perhaps it wouldn't have gotten as big. Structures such as RMBS and SIVs increased demand, but the primary culprit in this is the Fed IMO for three reasons.

First, the Fed kept too much liquidity into the system. This created asset inflation as liquidity flooded into the mortgage and housing markets.

Second, because interest rates were so low, investors reached for yield and increased demand for the structures you mentioned. Had interest rates not fallen so low, institutions would not have demanded higher returns from more risky products. The Fed affects pricing across the interest rate curve by nailing down short-term rates, which drags down the long end of the curve if inflation expectations remain dormant. Lower mortgage rates mean cheaper mortgages which means more credit to pump up housing prices.

Third, because of Greenspan's repeated actions to bail out the financial system whenever it got into trouble, the market believed that he would do so in the future. This was known as The Greenspan Put. It led investors to increase the leverage on their investments, which contributed greatly to the forced liquidation that caused the implosion of the financial system.

I do think deregulation played a significant factor, but it was a minor one relative to the Fed. There is a long history around the world of financial deregulation and asset bubbles and collapses. This contributed to the crisis. But the reason why it almost certainly wasn't the primary factor was because there were housing bubbles around the world where structures and derivatives played a negligible roll.

Finally, there were many other factors, including the role of the GSEs, which is mainly at the feet of the Democrats. I think this is overblown by ideologues but it wasn't zero either. Other factors included excess savings in Asia which recycled back into the US mortgage market, fraud and people's own greed.

why do you refuse to address the real question.


what do you know about these broker rules the Bush admin held back for 8 long years?


the very same years that this mess was created.

then in 2007 they finally put them in place and Poof the whole thing came down on our heads.

That I answered the way I did demonstrates I understand the issue What you refer to did not cause the Financial Crisis.

that is NOT an answer.


You must explain WHY the broker rules were suspended by Bush and why.

then you need to explain why these rules had NOTHING to do with the crimes

 

[boedicca]

why do you refuse to address the real question.


what do you know about these broker rules the Bush admin held back for 8 long years?


the very same years that this mess was created.

then in 2007 they finally put them in place and Poof the whole thing came down on our heads.

That I answered the way I did demonstrates I understand the issue What you refer to did not cause the Financial Crisis.

that is NOT an answer.


You must explain WHY the broker rules were suspended by Bush and why.

then you need to explain why these rules had NOTHING to do with the crimes

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that they caused the crimes.

You are asking him to prove a negative, you sad little sack of sophistry.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why do you feel broker regs would have done anything to prevent the financial bubble?

I will explain it YET again.


Before Gramm leach bliely act of 1999 banks COULD NOT sell securities.


after the bill was signed into law banks could sell securities.


The gramm leach bliely act had rules on WHO could be a broker of these securities.

In the past brokers had to have licenses.

Because the Securities and exchanges commitee ( SEC) which had a head appointed by Bush (Mr Cox) the SEC unders Bush fought back the implimentation of these broker rules.

This meant that the banks could all of the sudden sell securities and had NO rules covering who could be a broker and wether they had to act in a manner that was honest to keep their licsense from being revoked.

Now the banks could hire whomever they wanted to be a broker and train them however they wanted to train them.

These NEW brokers were under NO pressure to make sure their dealings met a certain level of honesty so they could retain their licsense.


The only ones they had to obey were their bank employers.


They did what they were told to do so they could keep their jobs.


IF they had to have a liscence to upkeep they would have told the banks NO when they told them to sell sub prime tainted securities to unsuspecting investors.


If they had said yes they would have risked jail and losing their licsence which would mean they would lose their jobs.


The little guy would have rebelled to save himself.

without the rules the little guy could only save themselves by doing the bidding of the boss.


The banks were making big money by hiding their sub prime from securities investors.


Its why they wrote so many even though they were NOT required to by law.


they were making money by cheating.

Look at the law suits.


with no broker rules there was NO way to keep these banks from doing this cheating.



That is what the Bush people wanted.

unfettered markets by gaming our LAWS.

they got their unfettered markets and we the people got what unfettered markets always produce.


a mountain of shit

Before Gramm leach bliely act of 1999 banks COULD NOT sell securities.

So what? We managed to build an internet bubble without banks selling securities, we would have still had a mortgage bubble without banks selling securities.
No it would not have happened without the broker rules being suspended for 8 years. The banks could not have hidden the sub prime into these mortgage securities without the broker rules being suspended. the brokers would have refused to selk the tainted securities because iut would have ruined their carreers and opened them up to prosicution.
IF they had to have a liscence to upkeep they would have told the banks NO when they told them to sell sub prime tainted securities to unsuspecting investors.

What about securities that weren't subprime?

they were triple A and were fine.

its when they hid the subprime in these triple A rated securities and LIED about them that they could dump them on unsuspecting buyers.

 

[Truthmatters]

That I answered the way I did demonstrates I understand the issue What you refer to did not cause the Financial Crisis.

that is NOT an answer.


You must explain WHY the broker rules were suspended by Bush and why.

then you need to explain why these rules had NOTHING to do with the crimes

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that they caused the crimes.

You are asking him to prove a negative, you sad little sack of sophistry.

For what reason did the Bush SEC head Cox hold back the broker rules written into law for 8 years?

 

[Truthmatters]

So the banks could do whatever they wanted to do.

 

[boedicca]

that is NOT an answer.


You must explain WHY the broker rules were suspended by Bush and why.

then you need to explain why these rules had NOTHING to do with the crimes

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that they caused the crimes.

You are asking him to prove a negative, you sad little sack of sophistry.

For what reason did the Bush SEC head Cox hold back the broker rules written into law for 8 years?

Prove you aren't a blithering idiot.

 

[Truthmatters]

Britons lost at least $50m in debacle | Business | The Guardian


the facts are all there you ******* idiot.



In a circular distributed in October, customers were told 90% of the money was in triple-A or double-A rated securities. Recently clients were assured its exposure to sub-prime mortgages was up to 7%. Yet it was subsequently revealed to be between 50% and 60% according to an initial complaint filed with the US National Association of Securities Dealers' arbitration tribunal.

 

[Truthmatters]

Not ONE person has ever explained WHY the Bush SEC head held back these regulations that were the LAW of our land.

why did they do it and why was it that the VERY years the laws were suspended were the years in which this mess was created by the banks.


all I get is bullshit in response

 

[Mad Scientist]

So the banks could do whatever they wanted to do.

The Banks couldn't POSSIBLY be doing anything wrong because Obama and his Justice Department would have busted them already.

 

[boedicca]

Britons lost at least $50m in debacle | Business | The Guardian


the facts are all there you ******* idiot.



In a circular distributed in October, customers were told 90% of the money was in triple-A or double-A rated securities. Recently clients were assured its exposure to sub-prime mortgages was up to 7%. Yet it was subsequently revealed to be between 50% and 60% according to an initial complaint filed with the US National Association of Securities Dealers' arbitration tribunal.

Some people made bad investments based on misinformation - and yet you complete neglect how the federal government promoted and actually required the issuance of subprime loans.

Go figure.