Trump must enact rules on banks so that a financial crisis never happens again. NEVER AGAIN, FOLKS!

[sparky]

here's the bottom line, my friends: big bankers made a fortune by cheating people & stealing money

bank regulators knew about the swindle and could have shut it down, but did nothing.

30 million people became jobless. 10 million people became homeless.

thousands of suicides were linked to the financial crisis.

the 2008 crash cost the economy 22 trillion and more human pain than anyone could ever count.

Obama already did that. Trump rolled back the laws and regulations Obama signed into law because he’s undoing everything OBama did.

Indeed he is, as he was elected to do.

For his wall street bro's....at OUR expense.....

Paving Way for Next Taxpayer-Funded Wall Street Bailout, Trump Fed Unveils Plan to Gut Volcker Rule
Instead of draining the swamp, Trump has become Wall Street’s best buddy | Will Hutton
~S~

 

[CowboyTed]

here's the bottom line, my friends: big bankers made a fortune by cheating people & stealing money

bank regulators knew about the swindle and could have shut it down, but did nothing.

30 million people became jobless. 10 million people became homeless.

thousands of suicides were linked to the financial crisis.

the 2008 crash cost the economy 22 trillion and more human pain than anyone could ever count.

Banks did not cause 30 million people to become jobless.

If I own a business, and the business is profitable, what do you think a bank is going to do to force me to lay people off?

Banks did not cause people to lose jobs.

Nor can rules on banks prevent a crash. Regulation is what caused the crash.

Please refrain from commenting on economics until you learn simple basic things.

If you own a business that is profitable, and your banker fears a recession or that your industry could have setbacks, and he cancellations your line of credit, and calls your loan, you’re out of business which is what happened in to a lot of businesses in 2008.

Andy must be one of those business men with no need customers with credit lines, no need insurance, no need for credit,....

He might be an undertaker?

 

[Dragonlady]

Don't grant loans to people who cannot pay them back.

Spoken as someone who has never had the authority to lend vast sums of money to strangers. I speak as someone who has had that authority and I know whereof I speak.

If you have the authority to grant loans and you never have a loan go bad, you’re not doing your job properly. Your lending practices are too tight and the bank is losing money because of your decisions. You should be fired and likely will be.

If that sounds whack to you, welcome walking that fine line. As a lender, you can’t know if someone is going to suffer a major illness, have an accident, or there’s a major stock market crash, and a recession. Shit happens and loans go bad as a result.

If your bad loan rate is right around 1%, you’re getting a raise. If it’s over 3%, get calling or dust off your resume. But if it falls below .5%, you’re probably too tight in your lending and you will be written up for this.

I’ve been in the position of being grateful to have a loan go bad because my recovery record was too good and I needed a loss to get it up closer to 1%.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

here's the bottom line, my friends: big bankers made a fortune by cheating people & stealing money

bank regulators knew about the swindle and could have shut it down, but did nothing.

30 million people became jobless. 10 million people became homeless.

thousands of suicides were linked to the financial crisis.

the 2008 crash cost the economy 22 trillion and more human pain than anyone could ever count.

Obama already did that. Trump rolled back the laws and regulations Obama signed into law because he’s undoing everything OBama did.

Indeed he is, as he was elected to do.

For his wall street bro's....at OUR expense.....

Paving Way for Next Taxpayer-Funded Wall Street Bailout, Trump Fed Unveils Plan to Gut Volcker Rule
Instead of draining the swamp, Trump has become Wall Street’s best buddy | Will Hutton
~S~

The only people who whine about Wall Street are people with no investments.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Don't grant loans to people who cannot pay them back.

Spoken as someone who has never had the authority to lend vast sums of money to strangers. I speak as someone who has had that authority and I know whereof I speak.

If you have the authority to grant loans and you never have a loan go bad, you’re not doing your job properly. Your lending practices are too tight and the bank is losing money because of your decisions. You should be fired and likely will be.

If that sounds whack to you, welcome walking that fine line. As a lender, you can’t know if someone is going to suffer a major illness, have an accident, or there’s a major stock market crash, and a recession. Shit happens and loans go bad as a result.

Indeed, but if you know the risk is bad from the git-go, send them packing.

 

[Andylusion]

I would like to see an insurable interest requirement for all credit default swaps. It is amazing to me such a regulation does not exist to this day. The lack of this requirement played a big part in the last crash.

That still turns my head round & round.....to my understanding (limited) the entire scenario orbits profiting on an impending failure.....

this big, dynamic, complicated economy of ours needs basic regulations in place, my friends, to make sure markets work.

We had 'em, they broke 'em......now i don't profess intricate knowlege beyond what i read.....but it would appear the punsihment (if any) justifies the crime.....

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

~S~

This is a strange line of thought to me.

"insurable interest requirement for all credit default swaps"

Huh? Credit default swaps ARE the insurance.

There is nothing super complicated about it. It is actually one of the most easy to understand concepts in the world.

I am a lender. I am lending to a large corporation. The debt is large enough, that I worry about if the company defaults.

I want insurance on this debt, that just in case there is an off chance the company defaults, that my company will be able to survive the loss.

So I take out a credit-default swap. I pay this bank a quarterly payment, and in return I have a payout if the company defaults on their debt.

This would be the same as car insurance. I pay a monthly premium, and in return if there is an accident, the company gives a payout for what is covered.

A credit default swap, is nothing complicated or mystical. It is simply insurance for a default.

There was no crime here. Without credit default swaps, the crash would have be far worse. A ton more institutions would have been in financial difficulty, if not for the mitigating effect of Credit Default Swaps.

 

[Dragonlady]

Don't grant loans to people who cannot pay them back.

Spoken as someone who has never had the authority to lend vast sums of money to strangers. I speak as someone who has had that authority and I know whereof I speak.

If you have the authority to grant loans and you never have a loan go bad, you’re not doing your job properly. Your lending practices are too tight and the bank is losing money because of your decisions. You should be fired and likely will be.

If that sounds whack to you, welcome walking that fine line. As a lender, you can’t know if someone is going to suffer a major illness, have an accident, or there’s a major stock market crash, and a recession. Shit happens and loans go bad as a result.

Indeed, but if you know the risk is bad from the git-go, send them packing.

Please fool, shut up now while you have any semblance of credibility left here.

NO bankers lends money thinking the loan will go bad and only a total fool would think that they did.

I the banking crisis bankers made bad mortgage loans believing that prices would continue to rise, and that the increased values would cover their losses. They also counting on selling the mortgages as “high risk” investments.

The banks made money off the commissions and lending fees when making the loans, and commissions and sales fees when they sold them as derivatives. And those who bought the mortgages from them, went broke.

 

[NightFox]

here's the bottom line, my friends: big bankers made a fortune by cheating people & stealing money

bank regulators knew about the swindle and could have shut it down, but did nothing.

30 million people became jobless. 10 million people became homeless.

thousands of suicides were linked to the financial crisis.

the 2008 crash cost the economy 22 trillion and more human pain than anyone could ever count.

What rules would you like to see Trump enact?

He can start by supporting the "Banks Aren't Allowed To Fail Because The Gub'mint Says So" Act and then move onto throwing his weight behind the comprehensive "Stock Prices Can Only Go Down Upon Pain of Death" financial reform bill.

After all, as any politician worth his/her salt will tell you, the laws of economics can be suspended by government edict.

 

[sparky]

There was no crime here.

Hence deregulated to being legal....~S~

 

[Andylusion]

There was no crime here.

Hence deregulated to being legal....~S~

There was nothing done that was deregulated to become legal.

Unless you are talking about risk. The problem there is that the entire system is built on risk. To outlaw risk taking, is to outlaw the entire banking system.

 

[NightFox]

The only people who whine about Wall Street are people with no investments.

Hmmmmm… interesting theory.

"There's been far, far, far more money made by people in Wall Street through salesmanship abilities than through investment abilities," he said. "There are a few people out there that are going to have an outstanding investment record. But very few of them. And the people you pay to help identify them don't know how to identify them. They do know how to sell you." -- Warren Buffett

"They're paying nothing and it's ridiculous. I want to save the middle class, The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky." -- Donald Trump

 

[Andylusion]

here's the bottom line, my friends: big bankers made a fortune by cheating people & stealing money

bank regulators knew about the swindle and could have shut it down, but did nothing.

30 million people became jobless. 10 million people became homeless.

thousands of suicides were linked to the financial crisis.

the 2008 crash cost the economy 22 trillion and more human pain than anyone could ever count.

Banks did not cause 30 million people to become jobless.

If I own a business, and the business is profitable, what do you think a bank is going to do to force me to lay people off?

Banks did not cause people to lose jobs.

Nor can rules on banks prevent a crash. Regulation is what caused the crash.

Please refrain from commenting on economics until you learn simple basic things.

If you own a business that is profitable, and your banker fears a recession or that your industry could have setbacks, and he cancellations your line of credit, and calls your loan, you’re out of business which is what happened in to a lot of businesses in 2008.

Andy must be one of those business men with no need customers with credit lines, no need insurance, no need for credit,....

He might be an undertaker?

What he said did not happen.
If the company is profitable, and is paying their loans, it is unlikely the bank would call a loan and cause the company to fail, so they end up defaulting on the loan.

That would be counter productive for the bank.

Moreover, if you are a profitable business, with an excellent credit rating because you are paying back all of your loans, even if the bank you were with called your loan, there would be more than enough banks that would be happy to take over a loan. I worked at a company that switched banks. I was never given a reason why, but they had no problem finding another bank to do business with.

On the other hand, if you are paying late, do not have stable income, or have too much debt over all.... then that isn't the banks causing you to fail. That's you causing you to fail.

 

[Dragonlady]

here's the bottom line, my friends: big bankers made a fortune by cheating people & stealing money

bank regulators knew about the swindle and could have shut it down, but did nothing.

30 million people became jobless. 10 million people became homeless.

thousands of suicides were linked to the financial crisis.

the 2008 crash cost the economy 22 trillion and more human pain than anyone could ever count.

Banks did not cause 30 million people to become jobless.

If I own a business, and the business is profitable, what do you think a bank is going to do to force me to lay people off?

Banks did not cause people to lose jobs.

Nor can rules on banks prevent a crash. Regulation is what caused the crash.

Please refrain from commenting on economics until you learn simple basic things.

If you own a business that is profitable, and your banker fears a recession or that your industry could have setbacks, and he cancellations your line of credit, and calls your loan, you’re out of business which is what happened in to a lot of businesses in 2008.

Andy must be one of those business men with no need customers with credit lines, no need insurance, no need for credit,....

He might be an undertaker?

What he said did not happen.
If the company is profitable, and is paying their loans, it is unlikely the bank would call a loan and cause the company to fail, so they end up defaulting on the loan.

That would be counter productive for the bank.

Moreover, if you are a profitable business, with an excellent credit rating because you are paying back all of your loans, even if the bank you were with called your loan, there would be more than enough banks that would be happy to take over a loan. I worked at a company that switched banks. I was never given a reason why, but they had no problem finding another bank to do business with.

On the other hand, if you are paying late, do not have stable income, or have too much debt over all.... then that isn't the banks causing you to fail. That's you causing you to fail.

Again your post is long on assumptions and short on FACTS.

Yes, companies that are profitable and have paid their loans are LESS likely to have their loans called, and new applications declined but it does happen.

I’ve had loan requests for good clients turned down because forecasts for their economic sector indicated a slow down, even though the actual application was otherwise strong. This is especially true in housing construction.

Like I said, you should stop posting about things you know little to nothing about.

 

[Andylusion]

The only people who whine about Wall Street are people with no investments.

Hmmmmm… interesting theory.

"There's been far, far, far more money made by people in Wall Street through salesmanship abilities than through investment abilities," he said. "There are a few people out there that are going to have an outstanding investment record. But very few of them. And the people you pay to help identify them don't know how to identify them. They do know how to sell you." -- Warren Buffett

"They're paying nothing and it's ridiculous. I want to save the middle class, The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky." -- Donald Trump

I don't think Buffet was complaining about Wall Street. He was just stating a fact that more money is made through salesmanship than investment abilities. And that is absolutely true.

In fact, that is true for most of the economy. When I worked at a dealership, I found that the top 3 of the 6 total sales guys, were pulling down more money from commission, than the sales manager, or the service manager.

As far as Trump, I would never pay attention to what he says. Hedge funds and the middle class, have nothing to do with each other. If you destroyed the hedge funds, not one single person in the middle class would be better off. Nor are hedge funds better off, if the middle class is worse off.

He's just being a salesman himself.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Uuuuummmm ......ummmmmmm SARBOX ,. Dodd Frank.....we are saved

 

[g5000]

I would like to see an insurable interest requirement for all credit default swaps. It is amazing to me such a regulation does not exist to this day. The lack of this requirement played a big part in the last crash.

That still turns my head round & round.....to my understanding (limited) the entire scenario orbits profiting on an impending failure.....

this big, dynamic, complicated economy of ours needs basic regulations in place, my friends, to make sure markets work.

We had 'em, they broke 'em......now i don't profess intricate knowlege beyond what i read.....but it would appear the punsihment (if any) justifies the crime.....

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

~S~

This is a strange line of thought to me.

"insurable interest requirement for all credit default swaps"

Huh? Credit default swaps ARE the insurance.

There is nothing super complicated about it. It is actually one of the most easy to understand concepts in the world.

I am a lender. I am lending to a large corporation. The debt is large enough, that I worry about if the company defaults.

I want insurance on this debt, that just in case there is an off chance the company defaults, that my company will be able to survive the loss.

So I take out a credit-default swap. I pay this bank a quarterly payment, and in return I have a payout if the company defaults on their debt.

This would be the same as car insurance. I pay a monthly premium, and in return if there is an accident, the company gives a payout for what is covered.

A credit default swap, is nothing complicated or mystical. It is simply insurance for a default.

There was no crime here. Without credit default swaps, the crash would have be far worse. A ton more institutions would have been in financial difficulty, if not for the mitigating effect of Credit Default Swaps.

You are terribly, horribly, seriously wrong.

Insurance requires an insurable interest. CDS do not.

When you say "There was no crime here", you are also being terribly misguided. CDS is like burning down your neighbor's house and saying "There is no crime here" because there are no laws against arson. While technically correct, it is a truly fuckwit thing to say.

Now pay attention.

If you borrow $200,000 to buy a house and it burns down, you still have to pay back that $200,000. And you have no house.

That totally sucks.

So you buy insurance. In fact, for a government backed loan, you are required to buy insurance.

Cool. All is good.

But what about the other end of this deal? You loan $200,000 to someone and then they default. They don't pay you back. ****! You're out 200 grand!

And that is what the CDS was invented for. It was insurance a lender could buy to cover the risk of default.

But here is where our politicians really screwed the pooch, ladies and gentlemen.

The inventors, sellers, and buyers of CDS did not want a CDS to be called "insurance". In federal law, there are all kinds of rules surrounding any insurance product. And the free wheeling marketeers HATE regulations. They dodge and evade them as much as possible.

So let's not call a CDS insurance any more, mm-kay? SHHHH! (*wink wink*)

We will call a CDS a...ummm...hmmm...aha! We will call it a "derivative"! Yeah, that's it.

Now why didn't anybody want to call a CDS what it is? Why didn't they want to call it insurance?

Because insurance has this annoying thing called an "insurable interest" requirement.

This simple regulation prevents homicides, arsons, and all kinds of other nasty things. Man, I hate regulation!


If you own a house, you buy fire insurance against that house because you stand to lose money if it burns down.

If the house of someone across town burns down, you don't suffer a financial loss. This means you do not have an "insurable interest" in that stranger's house.

You cannot buy fire insurance against a stranger's house because of the insurable interest requirement.

The reason you cannot buy insurance against a stranger's house is pretty obvious. There would be a shitload of arsons. A guy could buy insurance against a stranger's house, make a single premium payment, and then torch that stranger's house to the ground and collect the insurance.

If there wasn't an insurable interest requirement for life insurance, we could all insure that black guy down the street and then lynch the shit out of him and make some profit at the same time! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

So not all regulations are bad, eh? Some save lives and money.

But imagine if you could buy fire insurance against a stranger's house. Imagine if everyone could.

A $200,000 house could have ten policies against it by strangers. Now if the house burns down, the insurance company isn't out $200,000. It is out $2 million!!!

And that is the problem with CDS. They do not have an insurable interest requirement. They are totally unregulated.

That is why all the players went out of their way to get the regulators not to call a CDS "insurance".

But why would they do that? Isn't that ******* CRAZY!?!

Yep.

But we are talking about people who have moral qualms about lynching for profit, so to speak.

With a CDS, a person could bet against your mortgage burning down. Not kidding.

Now think about that.

If you are an arsonist, what's a sure way to guarantee a bunch of mortgages are going to burn to the ground?

You lend money to people you know can't possibly make the payments. Then you build a CDO out of those mortgages. Then you build a synthetic CDO on top of that toxic CDO.

But since there isn't even an insurable interest requirement for CDS, you can go out and find toxic mortgages which you didn't even make, and pack them into your synthetic CDO!

Then you sell the tranches for that synthetic CDO to some mushroom investors who you don't tell you built this whole firetrap. They have no idea you are on the other side of the bet, because you used a broker-dealer at Goldman Sachs as your cutout.

Then you throw the match and collect the insurance.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what ABACUS 2007 AC-1 was all about.

FMI: Factbox: How Goldman's ABACUS deal worked | Reuters

 

[g5000]

So...yeah.

I would like to see an insurable interest requirement for all credit default swaps. It is amazing to me such a regulation does not exist to this day. The lack of this requirement played a big part in the last crash.

 

[sparky]

worse is what it all looks like on a global scale.....

 

[g5000]

The lack of an insurable interest requirement was a force multiplier during the economic meltdown. Instead of one policy per house, there were ten, a hundred, a thousand. Instead of a $200,000 loss when a mortgage burned down, there were $millions lost for each one.

And there was lots and lots and lots of financial arson.

Anyone who says there was no crime is a ******* clueless idiot.

 

[sparky]

the crime is our lack of understanding it g5000

i'm an apt example, it took me years to get my head around the fact that these people can create a value or valuation out of thin air....


~S~