Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Toddsterpatriot]

Housing did not cause the collapse.
The collapse was caused by a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme which came about from Republican deregulation.
Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction A 516 Trillion Derivatives 8216 Time-Bomb 8217 Global Research

Name the banks that got in trouble because of derivatives

 

[zeke]

Name the banks that got in trouble because of derivatives

Hey todd, here are some of the banks that got in trouble and got bailed out. Recently the banks were able to get our Congress to agree that the banks could keep playing in the derivative markets and if they fuck up again, us taxpayers will bail them out again.


As you read this, there are five Wall Street banks that each have more than 40 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives. The following numbers come from the OCC’s most recent quarterly report (see Table 2)…

JPMorgan Chase

Total Assets: $2,520,336,000,000 (about 2.5 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $68,326,075,000,000 (more than 68 trillion dollars)

Citibank

Total Assets: $1,909,715,000,000 (slightly more than 1.9 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $61,753,462,000,000 (more than 61 trillion dollars)

Goldman Sachs

Total Assets: $860,008,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $57,695,156,000,000 (more than 57 trillion dollars)

Bank Of America

Total Assets: $2,172,001,000,000 (a bit more than 2.1 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $55,472,434,000,000 (more than 55 trillion dollars)

Morgan Stanley

Total Assets: $826,568,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Name the banks that got in trouble because of derivatives

Hey todd, here are some of the banks that got in trouble and got bailed out. Recently the banks were able to get our Congress to agree that the banks could keep playing in the derivative markets and if they fuck up again, us taxpayers will bail them out again.


As you read this, there are five Wall Street banks that each have more than 40 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives. The following numbers come from the OCC’s most recent quarterly report (see Table 2)…

JPMorgan Chase

Total Assets: $2,520,336,000,000 (about 2.5 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $68,326,075,000,000 (more than 68 trillion dollars)

Citibank

Total Assets: $1,909,715,000,000 (slightly more than 1.9 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $61,753,462,000,000 (more than 61 trillion dollars)

Goldman Sachs

Total Assets: $860,008,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $57,695,156,000,000 (more than 57 trillion dollars)

Bank Of America

Total Assets: $2,172,001,000,000 (a bit more than 2.1 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $55,472,434,000,000 (more than 55 trillion dollars)

Morgan Stanley

Total Assets: $826,568,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)

Thanks.

Despite the misuse of "exposure", I don't see any info in your post showing that any of those banks got in trouble from derivatives.

 

[Dragonlady]

Fannie and Freddie had lower levels of sub-prime loans than the big banks. That's because the big banks considered sub-prime a license to print money and were openly encouraging their brokers to make sub-prime loans because (a) they were highly profitable; and (b) they sold off the loans as quickly as they made hem so they really had no risk exposure themselves.

It's a conservative myth that Fanny & Freddie caused the collapse. Yes, they got caught up in it, but they didn't cause it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fannie and Freddie had lower levels of sub-prime loans than the big banks. That's because the big banks considered sub-prime a license to print money and were openly encouraging their brokers to make sub-prime loans because (a) they were highly profitable; and (b) they sold off the loans as quickly as they made hem so they really had no risk exposure themselves.

It's a conservative myth that Fanny & Freddie caused the collapse. Yes, they got caught up in it, but they didn't cause it.

They didnt help it either. And since, unlike the banks, Fan/Fred represent public money the taxpayer was on the hook for their losses. And while the banks have paid back their bail out money with interest at a profit to the US (Thanks, George W!), Fan/Fred will never pay back what they cost us.
And if that isnt bad enough, The Obama Administration is setting it up again, with Mel Watts moving to lower lending standards.

 

[TooTall]

A wing nutter who doesn't want to pay his bills. Shocking. I thought the REASON the Dubya tax cuts were to 'create jobs' through 'job creator' policies? lol

Dubya/GOP took US from 20%+ of GDP in federal tax revenues to less than 15% (Korean war levels) AS they blew up spending!!!!

And the spending keeps going on and on. Obama's lowest deficit is higher than any of Bush's. Unemplloyment averaged 5.8% during Bush's 8 years. Not a lot of room for creating jobs if everyone that wants one already has one.

Weird, Dubya had a $1.2+ trillion deficit his last F/Y that started Oct 1, 2008. AS OF JAN 8, 2009, 12 DAYS BEFORE OBAMA???


CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

UNEMPLOYMENT AVERAGED? Oh you mean he inherited less than 4% unemployment and with his ponzi scheme and borrowing, created a false economy? What was the trend like Dubya's last year again? lol



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?


A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!


A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you think that all happened in a Repub vacuum right?
Who publicly challenge Freddi and Fanny,and who said everything was fine?

FREDIE/FANNIE? LOL



One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.

Bush talked about GSE (F/F) reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R),now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


BUT


JUNE 17, 2004

Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan

Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush s low-income housing - Jun. 17 2004


Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Barney Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

MUCH MORE HERE ON DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE AND BUST

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now lets be fair here.

The bush boy did "reform" fannie mae and home lending practices.

He started out by declaring that all state regulations on lending to be void. All that controlled lending was federal regulations which the bush boy was removing as fast as he could.

One regulation he removed very publicly was the law that prohibited Fannie Mae from buying sub prime mortgage loans. Which was how those bad loans were dumped by banks onto investors all over the world. Their logic was that they would be "bundled with good loans." So when the bad loans failed the good ones would compensate for them. Which never happened because they were bundled with too many bad sub prime loans.

Meanwhile lending companies were investing in derivatives that
the loans would default. So some lending companies and banks made money on the loans, selling the loans and then when the loans went bad. That's when insurance companies like AIG went bankrupt.

It was irresponsible deregulation that caused the collapse. The democrats aren't the party of deregulation. That would be the republicans. And they went wild with it in the bush boy years.

Thankfully, the Democrats restored the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they took control of Congress for Bush's last two years in office. They did, didn't they?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fannie and Freddie had lower levels of sub-prime loans than the big banks. That's because the big banks considered sub-prime a license to print money and were openly encouraging their brokers to make sub-prime loans because (a) they were highly profitable; and (b) they sold off the loans as quickly as they made hem so they really had no risk exposure themselves.

It's a conservative myth that Fanny & Freddie caused the collapse. Yes, they got caught up in it, but they didn't cause it.

They didnt help it either. And since, unlike the banks, Fan/Fred represent public money the taxpayer was on the hook for their losses. And while the banks have paid back their bail out money with interest at a profit to the US (Thanks, George W!), Fan/Fred will never pay back what they cost us.
And if that isnt bad enough, The Obama Administration is setting it up again, with Mel Watts moving to lower lending standards.

And while the banks have paid back their bail out money with interest at a profit to the US (Thanks, George W!), Fan/Fred will never pay back what they cost us.

Actually, the US Treasury currently has a profit from Fannie and Freddie. Unfortunately, unlike the banks, which have mostly bought back their stock and warrants, the government still owns (and is still on the hook for) them.

If a future housing slump occurs, big losses are a possibility.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Fannie And Freddie were the world PREMIERE FUNDING MEANS OF SUB-PRIME LOANS!

You are a nit wit whursmykeys. Look up mortgage backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations.
(CDO) Try and educate yourself. See what kind of appetite Wall Street had for those mortgage backed securities.

So you think Fannie and Freddie cooked up all those NINA low teaser rate ARMS eh? And then forced the borrower into default. Then gladly took those homes in a foreclosure action. Is that what you think? Because those socialists wanted to give those foreclosed houses to who? Black people. Right? Black people were given nice homes taken from white people under the Community Reinvestment Act that Fannie and Freddie oversaw.
That's what the CRA was all about. Giving houses to black people. Right?


So why did lending standards decline? At least one study has suggested that the decline in standards was driven by a shift of mortgage securitization from a tightly controlled duopoly to a competitive market in which mortgage originators held the most sway.[6] The worst mortgage vintage years coincided with the periods during which Government Sponsored Enterprises (specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) were at their weakest, and mortgage originators and private label securitizers were at their strongest.[6]

No one has suggested that Fannie and Freddie were in any way affiliated with the sale of securitized mortgages... no one claimed that either had any responsibility for the development or marketing of such.

Those securities were essential however to spreading the risk intrinsic those mortgages Fannie and Freddie to continue to guaranteeing the doomed mortgages... .

This was all a result of the Left having LONG AGO coerced sound principle from the lending business.

You want to focus upon the effect, treating it is the cause... which is typical of the relativist. But in truth, by the time the Securitized mortgages came along, the damage was done, the industry was operating on the new rules with nearly non-existence standards and there is only one organism which sees every standard as 'discrimination' and that organism is the Ideological Left.

 

[Sarah G]

They don't make policy, they just do what their pacs tell them to do. Left on their own, they'd be scary stupid.

 

[Ernie S.]

Housing did not cause the collapse.
The collapse was caused by a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme which came about from Republican deregulation.
Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction A 516 Trillion Derivatives 8216 Time-Bomb 8217 Global Research

And what was the purpose of the derivatives?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Housing did not cause the collapse.
The collapse was caused by a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme which came about from Republican deregulation.
Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction A 516 Trillion Derivatives 8216 Time-Bomb 8217 Global Research

You're an imbecile.

The Left stripped the mortgage industries of any discernible standard, caused a run on real estate, drove the value of real estate beyond the means of the market to sustain it... crashed the market.

Derivatives merely spread the risk.

There was no Ponzi scheme; as new investors were not needed to sustain the values... increasing values for real estate were necessary. When the Left drove the financial markets into Relativism... they erased the principles that sustained the market's viability. Therefore, it was inevitable that Market values would rise beyond the means of the values to be sustained.

There is NOTHING complex about this.

 

[hipeter924]

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

1. Technically true, but most of these jobs were low paid jobs, the high paid jobs were lost and never came back. Millions lost their jobs and never returned to the workforce due to homelessness, welfare dependency or being unemployable.

2. There wasn't a big tax cut for upper middle class and above, who saw their taxes remain the same or even go up from 2009-2014: Full List of Obama Tax Hikes Americans for Tax Reform

3. Unemployment benefits aren't widespread enough, and aren't funded enough to cover everyone who lost their jobs, and the extension was too late for everyone who lost everything from 2008-2009. The reality is that America is never going to get back the millions of Americans it lost in 2008-2009 to homelessness and poverty. While the government won't admit it, it has pretty much given up and focuses on prevention. But this is something happening the world over.

4. Well, technically unemployment benefits do allow the unemployed to pay basic living expenses, but even under the best circumstances they would be out of pocket for health insurance, and when the benefit runs out they either become homeless, or employers refuse to employ them as they have been out of the workforce too long. So extending benefits would have had negligible effect, when it is just delaying the inevitable loss of millions from the workforce.

 

[The Rabbi]

Housing did not cause the collapse.
The collapse was caused by a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme which came about from Republican deregulation.
Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction A 516 Trillion Derivatives 8216 Time-Bomb 8217 Global Research

And what was the purpose of the derivatives?

Do you really expect an answer beyond "a way for rich people to get richer while threatening the financial system"? I mean Chris isnt exactly the next candidate for Federal Reserve chairman, if you get my drift.

 

[zeke]

I don't see any info in your post showing that any of those banks got in trouble from derivatives.

Todd, you know the name "Bear Stearnes"? Failed investment bank. Playing in the derivatives market.

What "vehicle" was the banks using during the financial collapse that caused the TARP program Todd? You seem pretty well obsessed with WHY the banks were in danger of failing. Do you understand how the mortgage markets and the derivative markets all got twisted up?

Why can't you use Google to find this stuff out. It is all over the 'Net.

Educate yourself dude and quit asking others to explain it to you. The info is out there.

 

[zeke]

And what was the purpose of the derivatives?

Ernie, really? Derivatives are the means major investors use to hedge bets and make money on both the upside and the downside of markets. All kinds of markets.

They (derivatives) can also be used to lose extremely large amounts of money. Like they did just in the last financial collapse.

Why do you think Chase Bank pushed so hard in the latest government funding bill to assure the banks that when they lost their asses again playing in the derivatives markets that us tax payers will bail them out again.

Privatize the gain and socialize the risk. Big banks love them some Republican Congresscritters. And they LOVE derivatives.

 

[reason10]

I know more than you do.

You forgot to go; nah nah nah nah boo boo.

I know the truth.

LMAO The truth about WHAT?

YOUR way has produced the worse economies in history.

Really? That Clinton economy sure sucked eh? And EVEN Obama could have had a better economy IF he could have created government jobs like Ronnie Reagan created government jobs.

And don't come back and say Reagan didn't oversee an explosion in government spending. Cause I thought you said you know what the "truth" is.

The Clinton economy produced a RECESSION in 2000. It hiked gasoline prices. It produced nothing but government jobs. The Reagan years produced PRIVATE SECTOR jobs. The Obama years produced a record number of FOOD STAMP recipients.
You lose again.

 

[Ernie S.]

And what was the purpose of the derivatives?

Ernie, really? Derivatives are the means major investors use to hedge bets and make money on both the upside and the downside of markets. All kinds of markets.

They (derivatives) can also be used to lose extremely large amounts of money. Like they did just in the last financial collapse.

Why do you think Chase Bank pushed so hard in the latest government funding bill to assure the banks that when they lost their asses again playing in the derivatives markets that us tax payers will bail them out again.

Privatize the gain and socialize the risk. Big banks love them some Republican Congresscritters. And they LOVE derivatives.

You do realize that without bad mortgages there would be no need for mortgage based derivatives, don't you?

 

[Ernie S.]

Housing did not cause the collapse.
The collapse was caused by a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme which came about from Republican deregulation.
Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction A 516 Trillion Derivatives 8216 Time-Bomb 8217 Global Research

And what was the purpose of the derivatives?

Do you really expect an answer beyond "a way for rich people to get richer while threatening the financial system"? I mean Chris isnt exactly the next candidate for Federal Reserve chairman, if you get my drift.

I really don't expect him or Zeke to understand cause and effect either.

 

[zeke]

ong?

You do realize that without bad mortgages there would be no need for mortgage based derivatives, don't you?

WTF Ernie? Try and explain just what it is you mean. You have gone from not knowing what "derivatives" are to wanting to know about "mortgage based derivatives".

Did you know that in the mortgage industry, that there is always a certain number of borrowers who will default.
Are lenders hedging against mortgage defaults by using derivatives? Sure they are. But they don't know if the mortgages are all bad or all good. That's why they are hedging. That's the function.

What was really cool during the run up to the collapse was investment banks selling off mortgage backed securities, full of shit loans (of course the buyers of these loans didn't know they were shit loans till the end) then using derivatives to bet that those portfolios of loans would go bad.

Making money selling them as good loans and making money betting that they would go bad. Good gig if you can get it.

 

[zeke]

I really don't expect him or Zeke to understand cause and effect either.

Really ernie? So far as I can tell, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I wrote mortgage loans for 18 years. Before and all during the collapse. I got some understanding as to what happened. Seeing as how I watched and participated in the growing mess.

How about you? How many mortgage loans have you originated and closed? I averaged about 120 a year for 18 years. Do the math. And that does not count the loans I wrote that never closed for whatever reason.

Fannie/Freddie A paper loans. FHA loans. VA loans. Alt A loans. Construction/perm loans. Non conforming loans. Sub prime loans. ARM loans. Interest only loans. HELOC's.

I worked with human underwriters and computerized under writing. I worked with appraisers and title companies.
Real estate agents and real estate investors. Builders and rehabbers.

Now tell me ernie. How many of those loans have you written? And what is your experience in the mortgage world?