CDZ RCC: Discovering the Obvious in Panama

[Picaro]

There has always been "sub prime" loans. But originally they weren't "bad" loans. They were loans that people who fell outside of Fannie/Freddie guidelines could use for a home purchase.
But they were still a decent quality borrower. That changed dramatically later on.

I wrote A paper loans along with FHA and VA loans. I worked
primarily for banks or mortgage bankers. I was recruited by mortgage brokers for years.

As the mortgage problem developed you would see things like you couldn't believe. I would meet with a realtors client and determine they couldn't buy with cash. Then follow up with the realtor to find out their client had been APPROVED by a sub prime lender. Amazing.

People do not realize how big a part realtors played in the housing collapse. It was realtors who directed their turned down clients to shop the sub prime market. It was realtors who told their shit clients not to worry, they would get a loan. It was the realtors who helped perform the bait and switch at the closing table.

And the realtors walked away blameless. And blamed the mortgage loan officers.

No way to make shitty loans if you have no borrowers. Realtors supplied a lot of shitty borrowers.

Indeed, spot on. I bought three houses after the bubble in '87. Two of the sellers weren't bankrupt, they just didn't want to pay their mortgages after the market collapsed and they weren't going to get rich off of them. They sniveled and cried all about how it was all the Democrats' fault they took out $150,000 mortgages on a house I wouldn't have paid more than $25,000 for at any time, much less during a bubble. I kept asking them which Democrat it was that made them speculate and make such a ridiculously bad gamble, but they never did answer. It must have been a disguised, secret Democrat or something. These guys were defaulting simply out of dishonesty; the bankruptcy laws were pretty lenient, and these assholes could walk away without hardly any consequences, and have their credit back in three years, then do the same thing all over again in the next bubble.

These weren't 'poor people' defaulting, they were just crooks, and so were the bankers and fund managers peddling grossly over-valued CDO's to each other. and hedge funds and institutional buyers wowed by the high returns. And, as we can see, they suffered no real consequences for any of their choices, so we'll see the pattern repeated again. They're still at it for the most part now. Jamie Dimon lunches with Hillary regularly, and it isn't because she's witty and beautiful.

 

[Andylusion]

In the early 2000s, CDOs were generally diversified,[5] but by 2006–2007—when the CDO market grew to hundreds of billions of dollars—this changed. CDO collateral became dominated not by loans, but by lower level (BBB or A) tranches recycled from other asset-backed securities, whose assets were usually non-prime mortgages,[6] and are known as a synthetic CDO. These CDOs have been called "the engine that powered the mortgage supply chain" for nonprime mortgages,[7] and are credited with giving lenders greater incentive to make non-prime loans[8] leading up to the 2007-9subprime mortgage crisis.




Well looky there. Synthetic CDOs loaded with sub prime junk loans. Say it ain't so.

That doesn't even address my claims. Let alone contradict them. Why would I say it ain't so, when it doesn't even apply to the core of my argument?

 

[Andylusion]

A mortgage bank is not regulated as a federal or state bank and does not take deposits from consumers or businesses. A

See that part Andy? The lack of depositors meant that CRA requirements were not imposed on mortgage bankers.

It was accepting deposits without offering loans that caused the CRA to be implemented for BANKS.

Had nothing to do with sub prime loans.

Which still doesn't change anything I said. And you citing yourself as a source, is a bit of a joke. Can I cite myself, whenever you ask for proof?

 

[Picaro]

That doesn't even address my claims. Let alone contradict them. Why would I say it ain't so, when it doesn't even apply to the core of my argument?

We get it; your argument is 'daevulgubmint' did it, and Wall Street is a hapless innocent victim and they wuz forced, FORCED, to swindle each other and stuff. That's been the hand wave for a long time already, and nobody actually believed it then and they don't see any new evidence for it now.

 

[Andylusion]

Some people are just going to blame 'the guvmint' for everything no matter what, regardless, and will ignore or spin anything that dares blame the private sector for their own greed and bad decisions, including fraud. Nothing is ever the fault of business owners, and salesmen are always 100% honest and knowledgeable of what they're selling, you know.

There has always been "sub prime" loans. But originally they weren't "bad" loans. They were loans that people who fell outside of Fannie/Freddie guidelines could use for a home purchase.
But they were still a decent quality borrower. That changed dramatically later on.

I wrote A paper loans along with FHA and VA loans. I worked
primarily for banks or mortgage bankers. I was recruited by mortgage brokers for years.

As the mortgage problem developed you would see things like you couldn't believe. I would meet with a realtors client and determine they couldn't buy with cash. Then follow up with the realtor to find out their client had been APPROVED by a sub prime lender. Amazing.

People do not realize how big a part realtors played in the housing collapse. It was realtors who directed their turned down clients to shop the sub prime market. It was realtors who told their shit clients not to worry, they would get a loan. It was the realtors who helped perform the bait and switch at the closing table.

And the realtors walked away blameless. And blamed the mortgage loan officers.

No way to make shitty loans if you have no borrowers. Realtors supplied a lot of shitty borrowers.

Now you are telling me, what I said, as if I didn't know. I already said, and posted a graph showing, that sub-prime loans have always been around, but as a niche market.

And while everything you said about realtors is true.... what changed?

The standard argument I get from people is "greed". But I find that lacking. If Greed was the problem, then you are suggesting that realtors, or whoever, was magically not greedy for decades on end, and then magically became greedy in 1997? I've worked with several realtors, and they were pretty much just trying to help people buy houses. You do get that, that's their job, right? Now obviously there are bonkers realtors out there, and not like the ones I knew, but I still get caught by this idea that "they magically got greedy in 1997".

Human nature hasn't changed in 6,000 years. Why did the sub-prime boom, and housing bubble, start in 1997?

My answer, is as I have given. Freddie Mac, allowed sub-prime loans to be bundled with prime rate loans, by securitizing them. That program started in 1997, which exactly when the sub-prime boom start, which is exactly when the housing bubble started.

Everything that happened after that was an effect, of this action.

 

[Andylusion]

That doesn't even address my claims. Let alone contradict them. Why would I say it ain't so, when it doesn't even apply to the core of my argument?

We get it; your argument is 'daevulgubmint' did it, and Wall Street is a hapless innocent victim and they wuz forced, FORCED, to swindle each other and stuff. That's been the hand wave for a long time already, and nobody actually believed it then and they don't see any new evidence for it now.

So in other words, you can't argue one single thing that I posted. You can't contradict a single fact, or counter a single claim. Therefore you are engaging in liberal-argument-textbook replies.... insult, mock, and then declare victory and leave before anyone can question you.

Look if you have a valid argument that actually addresses anything I said, then say it.

But if you are just going to go into pigeon-mode, then I'll mock you, for trying to mock.

 

[Picaro]

You shot your wad a while back. Mock all you want. Nobody cares about replying to your distorted spins any more, so 'Post Last!!!', and congratulate yourself or whatever it is trolls do, maybe make paper trophies out of construction paper and give themselves awards or whatever.

 

[Andylusion]

There has always been "sub prime" loans. But originally they weren't "bad" loans. They were loans that people who fell outside of Fannie/Freddie guidelines could use for a home purchase.
But they were still a decent quality borrower. That changed dramatically later on.

I wrote A paper loans along with FHA and VA loans. I worked
primarily for banks or mortgage bankers. I was recruited by mortgage brokers for years.

As the mortgage problem developed you would see things like you couldn't believe. I would meet with a realtors client and determine they couldn't buy with cash. Then follow up with the realtor to find out their client had been APPROVED by a sub prime lender. Amazing.

People do not realize how big a part realtors played in the housing collapse. It was realtors who directed their turned down clients to shop the sub prime market. It was realtors who told their shit clients not to worry, they would get a loan. It was the realtors who helped perform the bait and switch at the closing table.

And the realtors walked away blameless. And blamed the mortgage loan officers.

No way to make shitty loans if you have no borrowers. Realtors supplied a lot of shitty borrowers.

Indeed, spot on. I bought three houses after the bubble in '87. Two of the sellers weren't bankrupt, they just didn't want to pay their mortgages after the market collapsed and they weren't going to get rich off of them. They sniveled and cried all about how it was all the Democrats' fault they took out $150,000 mortgages on a house I wouldn't have paid more than $25,000 for at any time, much less during a bubble. I kept asking them which Democrat it was that made them speculate and make such a ridiculously bad gamble, but they never did answer. It must have been a disguised, secret Democrat or something. These guys were defaulting simply out of dishonesty; the bankruptcy laws were pretty lenient, and these assholes could walk away without hardly any consequences, and have their credit back in three years, then do the same thing all over again in the next bubble.

These weren't 'poor people' defaulting, they were just crooks, and so were the bankers and fund managers peddling grossly over-valued CDO's to each other. and hedge funds and institutional buyers wowed by the high returns. And, as we can see, they suffered no real consequences for any of their choices, so we'll see the pattern repeated again. They're still at it for the most part now. Jamie Dimon lunches with Hillary regularly, and it isn't because she's witty and beautiful.

First, they were only grossly over valued, because the government approved them. Freddie Mac guaranteed sub-prime loans. Later, so did Fannie Mae.

When the arms of the government approves these mortgages, they are going to have an artificially high value.

Just think about it... if you owned a care, and the government gave you a seal of approval on your vehicle, would you not be able to fetch a higher price when selling it, then if you had no approval?

Moreover, if I had an identical vehicle, would not my vehicles value also go up, because it is exactly the same as the car the government approved?

The same is true in mortgage backed securities. Government stamped their guarantee on sub-prime mortgage backed securities, and thus the value went up. When it turned out the government guarantee was crap, the value went down, and now people scream "you over-valued them!".

Lastly, the highlighted part.... it doesn't matter who it was. Not relevant. I've heard this from dozens of people, and I still don't get what point you and those like you, think that makes.

Once the sub-prime bubble started, and housing prices started rising, everyone is going to jump on the bubble. Tons of people bought investment homes, thinking that it was a brilliant investment. And of course it was a brilliant investment when the prices were continuously rising.

All of that is true... but still not relevant. What caused the sub-prime bubble to begin with? What caused housing prices to start rising to begin with?

Well to figure that out, we ask "when did the price bubble start", and that's 1997. And then we ask "what changed in 1997", and that's the Freddie Mac guaranteeing sub-prime loans.

Now if you have a different explanation, I'd love to hear it. But pointing out who sold what, 10 years after the problem started, I don't see any relevance to that.

 

[Andylusion]

You shot your wad a while back. Mock all you want. Nobody cares about replying to your distorted spins any more, so 'Post Last!!!', and congratulate yourself or whatever it is trolls do, maybe make paper trophies out of construction paper and give themselves awards or whatever.

Look, if you can't handle the heat, you shouldn't be in the kitchen. You are apparently one of those people that dishes it out, but then can't handle what you dish out being tossed back at you.

I didn't start this dude. I just gave back to you, what you dished out. You apparently can't handle that. So don't dish it out next time.

 

[Picaro]

You shot your wad a while back. Mock all you want. Nobody cares about replying to your distorted spins any more, so 'Post Last!!!', and congratulate yourself or whatever it is trolls do, maybe make paper trophies out of construction paper and give themselves awards or whatever.

Look, if you can't handle the heat, you shouldn't be in the kitchen. You are apparently one of those people that dishes it out, but then can't handle what you dish out being tossed back at you.

I didn't start this dude. I just gave back to you, what you dished out. You apparently can't handle that. So don't dish it out next time.

You think you're dishing out 'heat'??? that's hilarious.

 

[Andylusion]

You shot your wad a while back. Mock all you want. Nobody cares about replying to your distorted spins any more, so 'Post Last!!!', and congratulate yourself or whatever it is trolls do, maybe make paper trophies out of construction paper and give themselves awards or whatever.

Look, if you can't handle the heat, you shouldn't be in the kitchen. You are apparently one of those people that dishes it out, but then can't handle what you dish out being tossed back at you.

I didn't start this dude. I just gave back to you, what you dished out. You apparently can't handle that. So don't dish it out next time.

You think you're dishing out 'heat'??? that's hilarious.

So you don't have an argument. Or you would have said something other than this. Got it. Well, nice talking to you.

 

[320 Years of History]

So I looked up where Mark to Market was considered the "gold standard", and it turns out the "circles" where it is considered such, are academia. Well that's great. Since Jeff Skillings came from Academia, was top 5% of his Harvard class, as a baker scholar.

It's funny to me how often some groups on this forum constantly point to whatever the Ivory Tower pin heads say as authoritative, and yet it's always these same Ivory Tower "I'm F***ing Smart" people who are in the middle of every major disaster.

Red:
??? What are you talking about? Do you actually know?

• Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements
• Summary of FAS 157, Fair Value Measurements
  
• Questions and answers about fair value accounting

Who has pronounced fair value accounting as a "gold standard?"

Blue:
Please provide some credible documentation that shows that academia considers it so and include something showing that to be so before and after the implementation of FAS 157.

Green:
So what?

Purple:
Yes, people from all disciplines are subject to the cardinal sins of pride and avarice. What's your point?

M2M works great if you have common assets that have a common market. And in those areas of the economy, that's fine, and yes it has been around since the 1990s.

But the problem is, what if you don't have a common asset? Such as, a power plant project in India. You don't see massive markets for India power plants do you? So how do you know how much the future value of this asset is going to be? Well you don't.

Again, do you know what you are talking about? What is a "common asset?" I've read FAS 157, and there is no reference to "common assets." The word "common" doesn't even appear in the statement. Perhaps you mean CWIP assets? Perhaps you mean fixed assets? Perhaps you mean financial assets? Perhaps you mean current assets? I don't know. I do know that the ambiguity of "common assets" leaves you plenty of "wiggle room" to attest to what you did and didn't expressly say. I also know that if you knew what you were talking about in this highly technical subject area, you wouldn't use some nebulous term like "common assets."

Pink:
Why are you diving into accounting esoterica such as CWIP accounting, percentage of completion, and completed contract accounting when it's clear to me, and likely you too, that you are well out of your depth to do so and to opine on the application of those accounting principles and practices?

 

[320 Years of History]

A mortgage bank is not regulated as a federal or state bank and does not take deposits from consumers or businesses. A

See that part Andy? The lack of depositors meant that CRA requirements were not imposed on mortgage bankers.

It was accepting deposits without offering loans that caused the CRA to be implemented for BANKS.

Had nothing to do with sub prime loans.

Everything in accounting and accounting-related legislation/guidelines has three dimensions: nature, timing and extent. Andy seems to consistently ignore the scope, which is part of "nature," of the legislation, rules and guidelines about which he's writing in this thread. He did so with regard to Dodd-Frank, SOX, and now the CRA.

 

[Andylusion]

So I looked up where Mark to Market was considered the "gold standard", and it turns out the "circles" where it is considered such, are academia. Well that's great. Since Jeff Skillings came from Academia, was top 5% of his Harvard class, as a baker scholar.

It's funny to me how often some groups on this forum constantly point to whatever the Ivory Tower pin heads say as authoritative, and yet it's always these same Ivory Tower "I'm F***ing Smart" people who are in the middle of every major disaster.

Red:
??? What are you talking about? Do you actually know?

• Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements
• Summary of FAS 157, Fair Value Measurements
  
• Questions and answers about fair value accounting

Who has pronounced fair value accounting as a "gold standard?"

Blue:
Please provide some credible documentation that shows that academia considers it so and include something showing that to be so before and after the implementation of FAS 157.

Green:
So what?

Purple:
Yes, people from all disciplines are subject to the cardinal sins of pride and avarice. What's your point?

M2M works great if you have common assets that have a common market. And in those areas of the economy, that's fine, and yes it has been around since the 1990s.

But the problem is, what if you don't have a common asset? Such as, a power plant project in India. You don't see massive markets for India power plants do you? So how do you know how much the future value of this asset is going to be? Well you don't.

Again, do you know what you are talking about? What is a "common asset?" I've read FAS 157, and there is no reference to "common assets." The word "common" doesn't even appear in the statement. Perhaps you mean CWIP assets? Perhaps you mean fixed assets? Perhaps you mean financial assets? Perhaps you mean current assets? I don't know. I do know that the ambiguity of "common assets" leaves you plenty of "wiggle room" to attest to what you did and didn't expressly say. I also know that if you knew what you were talking about in this highly technical subject area, you wouldn't use some nebulous term like "common assets."

Pink:
Why are you diving into accounting esoterica such as CWIP accounting, percentage of completion, and completed contract accounting when it's clear to me, and likely you too, that you are well out of your depth to do so and to opine on the application of those accounting principles and practices?

First off, most of everything you just talked about, was in the link that the prior person posted.

Just read his link. That's where I got my information from. If that information is wrong, then complain at him not me. I'm just responding to the evidence he gave.

Second.... I totally agree with you. I'm not using technical terms. There's a reason. Believe it or not.... not everyone here is an accountant. I try and talk at the level of the people around me.

But you are correct. I am talking about stuff that I know just enough to get me by. Here's the kicker. This is open forum. I'm just posting my opinion. If you disagree with it... that's fine... but too bad. It's my opinion.

I'm reading your opinions all the time. That's how a forum works. If everyone was required to have a Ph.D in every topic they talked about, then this forum would be pretty much empty.

So.... That's how it goes bub. Welcome to a public forum. You don't like me talking about something I don't have a Harvard degree in? Too bad. Sucks to be you. Have nice day.

 

[Andylusion]

A mortgage bank is not regulated as a federal or state bank and does not take deposits from consumers or businesses. A

See that part Andy? The lack of depositors meant that CRA requirements were not imposed on mortgage bankers.

It was accepting deposits without offering loans that caused the CRA to be implemented for BANKS.

Had nothing to do with sub prime loans.

Everything in accounting and accounting-related legislation/guidelines has three dimensions: nature, timing and extent. Andy seems to consistently ignore the scope, which is part of "nature," of the legislation, rules and guidelines about which he's writing in this thread. He did so with regard to Dodd-Frank, SOX, and now the CRA.

And my argument to you would be that you believe the wider market is going to magically stay within the scope.

That's problem. You for some reason, think that when the government does just X... that no one else will do that. But that isn't how life works. When government does X, then everyone starts doing X.

It's like when you take your kids to the park, and they see other people's kids throwing stones. Pretty soon your kids are picking up stones, and you have to run over and say "no you can't chuck stones like all the other kids".

You think just because the Government guaranteed sub-prime loans, that magically no one else will. Wrong. Unintended consequences dude. Should they have? No. Doesn't matter.

Your kids start running around in the wrong crowd, and they'll start doing stuff they shouldn't do. Well what happens when government is doing the wrong things?

"well the scope was limited".... doesn't matter.

See again, I can't find a single instance anywhere, by anyone, that suggests that a single sub-prime loan was bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities prior to 1997. But as soon as Freddie Mac did it... the flood gates opened.

Now if you have contrary evidence, I'd love to see it.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm just posting my opinion. If you disagree with it... that's fine... but too bad. It's my opinion.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

Firstly, what’s an opinion?

Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s still a workable distinction today: unlike “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists, economists, accountants, attorneys, immunologists and so on and have their views “respected.”

So what does it mean to be “entitled” to an opinion?

If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven. But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

The problem is nobody distinguishes between opinion and informed opinion anymore. The greatest minds of our time are being lumped in with rock stars and actors. I’m not saying celebrities are stupid, but honestly, the ability to cry on cue isn’t the kind of talent we need driving our decision-making process. There’s a huge misconception that if Hollywood’s flavour of the week comes up with some homemade theory of economic development, it’s just as good as the experts’ at the University of Chicago. It’s not. It’s like asking the kid who makes your cappuccino every morning how to run a successful coffee plantation. He’s probably a nice guy, but nobody but an idiot would take his advice on anything beyond low fat or decaf. Yet, as a society, we continue to treat Bon Jovi, Sir Bob Geldof, Russell Brand, of late Donald Trump, and others as if they know what they’re doing. Welcome to Cloud Cuckoo Land.

 

[Wilbur Right]

The GSE's Wall Street Rivals Join the Party
It should come as no surprise that Fannie and Freddie's rivals on Wall Street wanted in on the profit bonanza of securitizing and investing in the portion of the mortgage market that the federal government had reserved for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They found a way to do this through financial innovation, which was spurred on by historically low short-term interest rates. (To learn more, read What is securitization?)

Starting in about 2000, Wall Street began to make a liquid and expanding market in mortgage products tied to short-term interest rates such one-year CMT, MTA, LIBOR, COFI, COSI and CODI. These adjustable-rate mortgages were sold to borrowers as loans that the borrower would refinance out of long before the rate and/or payment adjusted upward. They frequently had "exotic" characteristics such as interest-only or even negative-amortization features. In addition, they were frequently made with lax underwriting guidelines such as stated income and/or stated assets. Subprime lending took off. (For more insight, seeSubprime Lending: Helping Hand Or Underhanded?)

Investors such as pension funds, foreign governments, hedge funds and insurance companies readily purchased the sophisticated securities Wall Street created out of all the mortgages it was now purchasing. As Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saw their market shares drop, they too began purchasing and guaranteeing an increasing number of loans and securities with low credit quality.



Read more: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008 | Investopedia Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008 | Investopedia
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook




Franklin Raines (Fannie Mae) and the head of Freddie should have gone to jail. Along with most of the Wall Street supposed financial "experts".

 

[Andylusion]

The GSE's Wall Street Rivals Join the Party
It should come as no surprise that Fannie and Freddie's rivals on Wall Street wanted in on the profit bonanza of securitizing and investing in the portion of the mortgage market that the federal government had reserved for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They found a way to do this through financial innovation, which was spurred on by historically low short-term interest rates. (To learn more, read What is securitization?)

Starting in about 2000, Wall Street began to make a liquid and expanding market in mortgage products tied to short-term interest rates such one-year CMT, MTA, LIBOR, COFI, COSI and CODI. These adjustable-rate mortgages were sold to borrowers as loans that the borrower would refinance out of long before the rate and/or payment adjusted upward. They frequently had "exotic" characteristics such as interest-only or even negative-amortization features. In addition, they were frequently made with lax underwriting guidelines such as stated income and/or stated assets. Subprime lending took off. (For more insight, seeSubprime Lending: Helping Hand Or Underhanded?)

Investors such as pension funds, foreign governments, hedge funds and insurance companies readily purchased the sophisticated securities Wall Street created out of all the mortgages it was now purchasing. As Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saw their market shares drop, they too began purchasing and guaranteeing an increasing number of loans and securities with low credit quality.



Read more: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008 | Investopedia Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008 | Investopedia
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook




Franklin Raines (Fannie Mae) and the head of Freddie should have gone to jail. Along with most of the Wall Street supposed financial "experts".

I agree with everything you posted right there.

But there is one problem. True the government appointed heads of Fannie and Freddie both, and the Wall Street people, all pushed down lending standards.....

However.... the is what government wanted. How can we blame them for doing what government directed them to do? Obama himself sued Citi Bank, to force them to make loans to unqualified borrowers. Bill Clinton's own administration sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.

So, yeah I get why you are ticked off at the bank CEOs and Freddie and Fannie.... but... they were just doing what government told them to do.

 

[320 Years of History]

I may have missed a few posts in this thread, but can someone please explain how the discussion moved from wealthy individuals' use of tax havens and tax professionals who can help them structure transactions so as to shelter income to arcane accounting theory and practice, corporate governance, and so on? Now that I've been party to the latter element of the discussion, I realize I can't find the post, the connection, that got the conversation to that point.