Regulation of the financial industry

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,820
Reaction score
94
Points
85
Regulation of the financial industry should be an issue of Obama’s first term in office.

USA’s last financial fiasco wasn’t due to the “business cycle” but was induced a climate to deregulation, and dependence upon self control and governments reluctasnce to police. In many cases the foxes were left to guard the hen houses.

Who chooses the collateral assessors of federally insured loans? Do they work for the financial institutions or the federal government?

Collateral assessors for federally insured loans should be federal employees or licensed contractors acting as federal agents. The assessment cost should be imbedded within the costs of applying for a government insured loan. Such assessors should be subject to criminal penalties for fraud or loss of license for failure to act with due prudence. We cannot afford to risk public funds upon determinations of assessors that are primarily agents of banks or mortgage companies. It is not the institutions money that is primarily at risk.

We should consider prohibiting a government insured loan from being divided, then bundled and resold. The law could specify that such division is prohibited for 10 years, or it could be prohibited the entire life of the loan. We learned the hard way of the problem due to loans being divided and bundled for resale. If there’s a problem further on, no one owns the original loan. If it is financially feasible and advantageous to renegotiate the loan, no one has the legal right to do so.

I’m opposed to Government Supported Entities, (GSEs) purchasing or selling non government insured loans. That’s the function of an investment bank. I’m also opposed to federally insured banks acting as investment banks.

I’m not opposed to our limits of federally insured loan amounts per individuals and their dependents or per individual buildings and/or land or real-estate. I advocate federally insured home loans limits should be modified to reflect the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar in the year the loan is made.

I would not be opposed to federally insuring a portion of the full purchase price if that portion of the loan was a first mortgage and had other superior rights to all other loans and claims upon the property.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

rr1

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
88
Reaction score
17
Points
21
Regulation of the financial industry should be an issue of Obama’s first term in office.

USA’s last financial fiasco wasn’t due to the “business cycle” but was induced a climate to deregulation, and dependence upon self control and governments reluctasnce to police. In many cases the foxes were left to guard the hen houses.

Who chooses the collateral assessors of federally insured loans? Do they work for the financial institutions or the federal government?

Collateral assessors for federally insured loans should be federal employees or licensed contractors acting as federal agents. The assessment cost should be imbedded within the costs of applying for a government insured loan. Such assessors should be subject to criminal penalties for fraud or loss of license for failure to act with due prudence. We cannot afford to risk public funds upon determinations of assessors that are primarily agents of banks or mortgage companies. It is not the institutions money that is primarily at risk.

We should consider prohibiting a government insured loan from being divided, then bundled and resold. The law could specify that such division is prohibited for 10 years, or it could be prohibited the entire life of the loan. We learned the hard way of the problem due to loans being divided and bundled for resale. If there’s a problem further on, no one owns the original loan. If it is financially feasible and advantageous to renegotiate the loan, no one has the legal right to do so.

I’m opposed to Government Supported Entities, (GSEs) purchasing or selling non government insured loans. That’s the function of an investment bank. I’m also opposed to federally insured banks acting as investment banks.

I’m not opposed to our limits of federally insured loan amounts per individuals and their dependents or per individual buildings and/or land or real-estate. I advocate federally insured home loans limits should be modified to reflect the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar in the year the loan is made.

I would not be opposed to federally insuring a portion of the full purchase price if that portion of the loan was a first mortgage and had other superior rights to all other loans and claims upon the property.

Respectfully, Supposn
Most bank assessors or appraisers are not actively involved in guaranteed loans until the loan dumps. The idea being that the loan officers are considered packagers of the loan. SBA usually issues a loan guaranty for 90 days. This should be sufficient for any Bank to assess the loan application. If the loan does not qualify for Federal Loan Guaranty status, the Borrower should be notified within that ninety day period and be allowed to exercise their right of refusal concerning the loan. Such is not the case.

The Banks are allowed to deceive the Borrower to secure the loan and collect the servicing fee and origination points. SBA can then concur with the Bank after a Loan Modification and the Borrower is tossed. The Bank collects the fee for the loan, the Borrowers assets are auctioned off to the highest bidder and the courts issues a Judgment against the Borrower. Within 12 months of the Judgment the Bank then issues a 1099 to the Borrower and writes the whole mess of. Standard banking operating procedure. Hang the whole mess on the Borrower who never knew that they never had a Federal Loan Guaranty and that the Bank in question had no previous experience in loaning funds for the type of business involved.

The Bank's appraiser or Assessor becomes involved when the loan is passed to the Loan Support Team. The Borrower is allowed to believe that Loan Support is there to help with a Workout or to sustain the entity when in fact the Borrower is going to be sold out by the Bank that misrepresented the loan to them in the first place.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Regulation of the financial industry should be an issue of Obama’s first term in office.

USA’s last financial fiasco wasn’t due to the “business cycle” but was induced a climate to deregulation, and dependence upon self control and governments reluctasnce to police. In many cases the foxes were left to guard the hen houses.

Who chooses the collateral assessors of federally insured loans? Do they work for the financial institutions or the federal government?

Collateral assessors for federally insured loans should be federal employees or licensed contractors acting as federal agents. The assessment cost should be imbedded within the costs of applying for a government insured loan. Such assessors should be subject to criminal penalties for fraud or loss of license for failure to act with due prudence. We cannot afford to risk public funds upon determinations of assessors that are primarily agents of banks or mortgage companies. It is not the institutions money that is primarily at risk.

We should consider prohibiting a government insured loan from being divided, then bundled and resold. The law could specify that such division is prohibited for 10 years, or it could be prohibited the entire life of the loan. We learned the hard way of the problem due to loans being divided and bundled for resale. If there’s a problem further on, no one owns the original loan. If it is financially feasible and advantageous to renegotiate the loan, no one has the legal right to do so.

I’m opposed to Government Supported Entities, (GSEs) purchasing or selling non government insured loans. That’s the function of an investment bank. I’m also opposed to federally insured banks acting as investment banks.

I’m not opposed to our limits of federally insured loan amounts per individuals and their dependents or per individual buildings and/or land or real-estate. I advocate federally insured home loans limits should be modified to reflect the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar in the year the loan is made.

I would not be opposed to federally insuring a portion of the full purchase price if that portion of the loan was a first mortgage and had other superior rights to all other loans and claims upon the property.

Respectfully, Supposn
You ought to consider moving to North Korea where every industry is heavily regulated and they don't have boom and bust business cycles. Just the same ole depressed state every day with people starving to death in the streets. No problems with those nasty excessive imports either.
Respectfully.
 

rr1

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
88
Reaction score
17
Points
21
Regulation of the financial industry should be an issue of Obama’s first term in office.

USA’s last financial fiasco wasn’t due to the “business cycle” but was induced a climate to deregulation, and dependence upon self control and governments reluctasnce to police. In many cases the foxes were left to guard the hen houses.

Who chooses the collateral assessors of federally insured loans? Do they work for the financial institutions or the federal government?

Collateral assessors for federally insured loans should be federal employees or licensed contractors acting as federal agents. The assessment cost should be imbedded within the costs of applying for a government insured loan. Such assessors should be subject to criminal penalties for fraud or loss of license for failure to act with due prudence. We cannot afford to risk public funds upon determinations of assessors that are primarily agents of banks or mortgage companies. It is not the institutions money that is primarily at risk.

We should consider prohibiting a government insured loan from being divided, then bundled and resold. The law could specify that such division is prohibited for 10 years, or it could be prohibited the entire life of the loan. We learned the hard way of the problem due to loans being divided and bundled for resale. If there’s a problem further on, no one owns the original loan. If it is financially feasible and advantageous to renegotiate the loan, no one has the legal right to do so.

I’m opposed to Government Supported Entities, (GSEs) purchasing or selling non government insured loans. That’s the function of an investment bank. I’m also opposed to federally insured banks acting as investment banks.

I’m not opposed to our limits of federally insured loan amounts per individuals and their dependents or per individual buildings and/or land or real-estate. I advocate federally insured home loans limits should be modified to reflect the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar in the year the loan is made.

I would not be opposed to federally insuring a portion of the full purchase price if that portion of the loan was a first mortgage and had other superior rights to all other loans and claims upon the property.

Respectfully, Supposn
You ought to consider moving to North Korea where every industry is heavily regulated and they don't have boom and bust business cycles. Just the same ole depressed state every day with people starving to death in the streets. No problems with those nasty excessive imports either.
Respectfully.
You ought to consider putting some of the bankers on a chain. SBA is nothing more than a dumping ground for a lot of these banks.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
You ought to consider upping the dose on your meds as your post is incoherent.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,659
Points
48
Location
Maine
I think Bernake is right.

Tighter regulations would have prevented this meltdown.

And if Moody's and Standard and Poor properly evaluated the risk of bonds, this meltdown would not have happened.

And let me go out on a limb and say that if we had sensible trade policies, instead of this destructive FREE TRADE, we would not have had this meltdown, either.

This economic meltdown took a perfect storm of mistaken policies, lies by CEOS and deregulation of the financial industry to manifest.
 
Last edited:

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
Regulations would have prevented it but the cost would have been a slow economy. Bush did not want the numbers to slow so instead we got this Great Recession.

Would have been a depression without the stimulus.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
I think Bernake is right.

Tighter regulations would have prevented this meltdown.

And if Moody's and Standard and Poor properly evaluated the risk of bonds, this meltdown would not have happened.

And let me go out on a limb and say that if we had sensible trade policies, instead of this destructive FREE TRADE, we would not have had this meltdown, either.

This economic meltdown took a perfect storm of mistaken policies, lies by CEOS and deregulation of the financial industry to manifest.
I think you're an idiot.
Actually I know so.
Securities is one of the most highly regulated industries in this country. THe issue is that loose interest rate policies encouraged mortgage lending by making it easy money. With house prices rising constantly lenders had more and more security. It all made sense at the time.
Free trade has been one of the few areas that has contributed to economic strength. I'd suggest a book on economics for your nest birthday present.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,820
Reaction score
94
Points
85
I think you're an idiot. Actually I know so.
Securities is one of the most highly regulated industries in this country. THe issue is that loose interest rate policies encouraged mortgage lending by making it easy money. With house prices rising constantly lenders had more and more security. It all made sense at the time.
Free trade has been one of the few areas that has contributed to economic strength. I'd suggest a book on economics for your nest birthday present.
Rabbi, within his book, “Age of reason”, Allen Greenspan wrote of his dual and conflicting positions. He’s a proponent of laissez faire and he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. A major task of the Federal Reserve Board is regulating our money supply. It’s hoped that wisely regulating the dollar’s value would effectively (and wisely) affecting our economy.

Greenspan later regretted his advocating that we depended upon our financial industries and institutions recognition of their own best interests and they were intimately entwined with our nation’s best interests.

There are too many instances of financial entities' interests diverging from that of our nation. There are too many instances when the interests of those institutions executives were contrary to the interests of the institutions they claimed to be serving. Executives were driven by immediate profits with no consequences due to future losses.

Greenspan is now a proponent of greater financial regulations.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,820
Reaction score
94
Points
85
Rabbi, I am strongly opposed to granting any more than reasonable discretion of policy. I realize there can be great differing of what we believe is “reasonable”.

I do not share what seems to be your general opposition to explicitly drafted government laws and regulations if I believe that are necessary or very greatly advantageous to our nation.

Each proposed law should be judged upon its specific merits (and possible faults).

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
79,528
Reaction score
17,352
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
What exactly was "deregulated"? Is this an April Fools Financial Parody?
Commodities Modernization Act exempted derivatives from regulatory oversight.

In 2004, the SEC allowed the Big 5 Wall Street investment banks to increase leverage

The OCC overrode states laws to regulate abusive mortgage practices, allowing subprime mortgage brokers to market any shit they wanted.

There's more.

FYI, the CEO of Ameriquest - one of the biggest abusers of shit subprime mortgage products, a company that was sued by 30 states for lying about their mortgage products, and a company that collapsed - was appointed ambassador to Holland by the Bush administration.
 

elvis

Rookie
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
25,881
Reaction score
4,464
Points
0
What exactly was "deregulated"? Is this an April Fools Financial Parody?
Commodities Modernization Act exempted derivatives from regulatory oversight.

In 2004, the SEC allowed the Big 5 Wall Street investment banks to increase leverage

The OCC overrode states laws to regulate abusive mortgage practices, allowing subprime mortgage brokers to market any shit they wanted.

There's more.

FYI, the CEO of Ameriquest - one of the biggest abusers of shit subprime mortgage products, a company that was sued by 30 states for lying about their mortgage products, and a company that collapsed - was appointed ambassador to Holland by the Bush administration.
why is it that we apparently need a Glass-steagall act, while countries like Germany and japan do not and have not?
 

Neubarth

At the Ballpark July 30th
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
3,751
Reaction score
200
Points
48
Location
South Pacific
I think you're an idiot. Actually I know so.
Securities is one of the most highly regulated industries in this country. THe issue is that loose interest rate policies encouraged mortgage lending by making it easy money. With house prices rising constantly lenders had more and more security. It all made sense at the time.
Free trade has been one of the few areas that has contributed to economic strength. I'd suggest a book on economics for your nest birthday present.
Rabbi, within his book, “Age of reason”, Allen Greenspan wrote of his dual and conflicting positions. He’s a proponent of laissez faire and he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. A major task of the Federal Reserve Board is regulating our money supply. It’s hoped that wisely regulating the dollar’s value would effectively (and wisely) affecting our economy.

Greenspan later regretted his advocating that we depended upon our financial industries and institutions recognition of their own best interests and they were intimately entwined with our nation’s best interests.

There are too many instances of financial entities' interests diverging from that of our nation. There are too many instances when the interests of those institutions executives were contrary to the interests of the institutions they claimed to be serving. Executives were driven by immediate profits with no consequences due to future losses.

Greenspan is now a proponent of greater financial regulations.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn, the major task of the FED is not regulating our money supply. Who told you that? The major task of the FED it to prevent economic malaise that can result in chaos. and runs on banks. In that regard they have been doing fairly well. I'd give them a B- for the past century. How about you?

No business entity that does not have a clear cut path of operation runs the course with perfection. The FED is no different than any other business that is still trying to find itself. I commend them for trying to find out the real assignment as time has gone by. They are now trying to live up to the expectations of the new mandate, whatever that is.
 
Last edited:
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,820
Reaction score
94
Points
85
Free trade has been one of the few areas that has contributed to economic strength.
Rabbi, You’re aware of this economics board’s topic,”Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit”
and www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com .

I mention these for any other readers of this topic that may not be aware of them.

I’m a proponent of global trade but USA’s trade deficit should be greatly reduced. A policy based upon Buffett’s concept would accomplish that and increase the aggregate sum of USA’s imports plus exports.

There’s no economic benefit due to a trade deficit. Each dollar decrease of our trade deficit of goods induces a three dollar increase of our GDP. Our GDP bolsters our median.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
I think you're an idiot. Actually I know so.
Securities is one of the most highly regulated industries in this country. THe issue is that loose interest rate policies encouraged mortgage lending by making it easy money. With house prices rising constantly lenders had more and more security. It all made sense at the time.
Free trade has been one of the few areas that has contributed to economic strength. I'd suggest a book on economics for your nest birthday present.
Rabbi, within his book, “Age of reason”, Allen Greenspan wrote of his dual and conflicting positions. He’s a proponent of laissez faire and he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. A major task of the Federal Reserve Board is regulating our money supply. It’s hoped that wisely regulating the dollar’s value would effectively (and wisely) affecting our economy.

Greenspan later regretted his advocating that we depended upon our financial industries and institutions recognition of their own best interests and they were intimately entwined with our nation’s best interests.

There are too many instances of financial entities' interests diverging from that of our nation. There are too many instances when the interests of those institutions executives were contrary to the interests of the institutions they claimed to be serving. Executives were driven by immediate profits with no consequences due to future losses.

Greenspan is now a proponent of greater financial regulations.

Respectfully, Supposn
And this proves what? That Greenspan is a hypocrite? That his views are incoherent? That he went over to the other side? That absolute power corrupts absolutely?
I really don't care. Regulations are not there to prevent people from doing stupid things. The market already serves as a spanking mechanism for people who do stupid things. Thinking we can replace the market with regulations is well on the way to socialism and economic decline.
The problem is the bailouts rewarded the very behavior that regulation was supposed to stop. In any case no one has stated what regulations would have made the current melt down impossible. There aren't any, btw.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Free trade has been one of the few areas that has contributed to economic strength.
Rabbi, You’re aware of this economics board’s topic,”Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit”
and www.USA-Trade-Deficit.Blogspot.Com .

I mention these for any other readers of this topic that may not be aware of them.

I’m a proponent of global trade but USA’s trade deficit should be greatly reduced. A policy based upon Buffett’s concept would accomplish that and increase the aggregate sum of USA’s imports plus exports.

There’s no economic benefit due to a trade deficit. Each dollar decrease of our trade deficit of goods induces a three dollar increase of our GDP. Our GDP bolsters our median.

Respectfully, Supposn
Buffet's idiotic policy idea would destroy trade by putting a de facto tax on imports. Other countries would retaliate by putting a de jure tax on U.S. exports to their countries. The US already lost its case in international court in the steel tariffs under Bush.
Better interest rate policies would solve the problem without killing the patient.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,424
Reaction score
26,389
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
What exactly was "deregulated"? Is this an April Fools Financial Parody?
Commodities Modernization Act exempted derivatives from regulatory oversight.

In 2004, the SEC allowed the Big 5 Wall Street investment banks to increase leverage

The OCC overrode states laws to regulate abusive mortgage practices, allowing subprime mortgage brokers to market any shit they wanted.

There's more.

FYI, the CEO of Ameriquest - one of the biggest abusers of shit subprime mortgage products, a company that was sued by 30 states for lying about their mortgage products, and a company that collapsed - was appointed ambassador to Holland by the Bush administration.
But CRA still mandated that banks HAD to provide them with essentially sub-prime paper, right?

If the banks didn't have a willing patsy to buy the mortgages in the form of the American Taxpayer, they would not have done anywhere near the volume they did, which is what tanked the US hosing market
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
54,860
Reaction score
13,438
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
What exactly was "deregulated"? Is this an April Fools Financial Parody?
Commodities Modernization Act exempted derivatives from regulatory oversight.

In 2004, the SEC allowed the Big 5 Wall Street investment banks to increase leverage

The OCC overrode states laws to regulate abusive mortgage practices, allowing subprime mortgage brokers to market any shit they wanted.

There's more.

FYI, the CEO of Ameriquest - one of the biggest abusers of shit subprime mortgage products, a company that was sued by 30 states for lying about their mortgage products, and a company that collapsed - was appointed ambassador to Holland by the Bush administration.
But CRA still mandated that banks HAD to provide them with essentially sub-prime paper, right?

If the banks didn't have a willing patsy to buy the mortgages in the form of the American Taxpayer, they would not have done anywhere near the volume they did, which is what tanked the US hosing market
NOPE!

The Cra, ONLY told banks that if they were going to operated in a Community Reinvestment Area which was a black community as example, that they should authorize loans to the people in these areas using the same measures they would to other poor people in "White" neighborhoods, as example.

It DOES NOT MAKE IT MANDATORY that they loan to everyone in a reinvestment area, that is simply a LIE Frank, a BIG OLE FLAT OUT LIE.

my in laws were dirt poor, below dirt poor.....as a white person, my father in law still got a loan for his very modest house....Yes, they charged him a higher interest rate, than the going rate, because he was poor and had no collateral and was making very little in income, but he FINALLY did QUALIFY for a loan....AND HE PAID OFF THAT HOMEMortgage in 20 years, AS A POOR PERSON....because the banks gave him this opportunity, my husband and all of his many siblings and strangers they took in, had a home.

CRA does NOT make it mandatory that the banks loan to ALL PEOPLE THAT ASK....

again....that's a LIE....and why you continue to LIE about this is beyond reason.

Less than 6% of the loans in default across our nation were issued to people in CRA communities...94% OF THE SHITTY SUBPRIME LOANS in default or bankruptcy were issue to citizens in this country NOT IN COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top