Goodbye Lehman, Goodnight Merrill

MarkP

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
6,672
0
Colorado
Mike_Rupp said:
. . . The people that took out these sub-prime loans mostly knew what they were getting themselves into. They did it because of greed, not stupidity. Sure, there are morons out there, but by and large people should have known better.

It is right out of the communist manifesto to blame "the man" for this fiasco. In the same way that APG could never say a positive word about Bush, he could never bring himself to believe that the borrowers were also to blame. . . .

Agreed.

"A typical subprime borrower is not someone buying a house, but someone refinancing," says Mary Moore, a spokeswoman from the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit that advocates curbs on predatory lending. "A typical subprime borrower is someone who has a lot of credit-card debt, and is refinancing to pay some of it off.". . .​

The typical sub-prime borrower is one who assumed that real estate "always goes up" and therefore planned on rolling debt through this trajectory.

I should also be noted that political correctness and findings of discrimination resulted in regulation that encouraged high risk loans and simply getting the borrower the right answer, which was "Yes".
 

MUSKYMAN

Well-known member
Apr 19, 2004
8,277
0
OverBarrington IL
p m said:
Are you talking to me?

I am placing part of the blame on a loan broker who kept telling a family with barely beyond basic English skills that they could afford a $700k house on a $13k combined family income, something that happened in Hollister, California. And many like him. Hell, half of my junk mail in the last five years has been from loan brokers.
If you're one of them, you're in it too.

.

yeah Peter I was talking to you.

see and you just exposed my point....

see a underwritter reviewed and cleared that loan for that 700k house to close within the RISK LEVEL that a bank or secondary market wanted to lend at.

the broker just asked if they wanted a coke with that burger and fries.

anyone that thinks the brokers had any more power then that should sit down shut up and research how the system worked.

and Yes I am in it and have been for a good long time and have seen how it works from alot of angles.

kinda funny how some banks have almost no bad loans on the books and others have nothing but bad loans?...I guess some got lucky and the other banks just got unlucky hey:rolleyes:
 

Drillbit

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2005
5,943
1
Glasgow Ky
Of course the borrowers are responsible for taking out loans they didn't understand and couldn't really pay. A tiny fraction of the time the were defrauded by criminal lenders, the rest of the time they were just uneducated. Thats nothing new, happens every day at used car lots and alpaca farms. I can't really feel bad for these people losing their homes as they never could afford them anyway. When I bought my house i was horrified when the bank approved me for a 120k. If I had a payment on that most months I would be living on top ramen and saltines. Being qualified for a loan doesn't mean you should take it.

On the other side of the coin why didn't the banks see this coming. Risk is part of every investment. Managing risk is what professional investors are supposed to be doing. I want the name of the greedy gin sot's who said "hey, lets buy up all these mortgages for houses people won't be able to pay for if the economy doesn't keep going up like a rocket. Equity? Don't make them have equity, hell just make the pay the interest for 4 years then we get to charge them 9%, none of them will default and if they do their houses will have gone up 200% and we will make more money. Send in that secretary with the big knockers to bring us more cigars" That was pretty close to their business plan, the made more money than bankers ever had for a few years now they are begging for corporate charity and crying on their Armani suits and Breitling watches. I still vote for the heads on sticks, or at least genitals, don't want them reproducing.
 

noee

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2004
1,887
0
Free Union, VA
On the other side of the coin why didn't the banks see this coming. Risk is part of every investment.

See what coming? This whole system is based on debt-inflation - the inflating of debt to create money. This is their business, this is the way it has always worked from their context, they know exactly what this means and what the implications are. The issue is, they simply don't care.

You have to understand what debt looks like on and off their balance sheets,. Currently, the consensus is that either the debt on or off balance sheet is either worthless (not likely) or the value is simply unknown (the reality). Couple that with the leverage that these guys used to purchase/secure these instruments.....
 

Sam C.

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2006
189
0
Cumming, GA
Mike_Rupp said:
There are 2 sides to every transaction. How about all of the deadbeats that are defaulting on their loans? Are we going to cut their heads off as well?

Agreed, and the consumer side is more responsible than the brokerage side. Consumers set markets, without someone to buy a crappy loan they wouldn't exist. It is up to the consumer to fully understand their purchase terms and future adjustments on any loan.
 

Mike_Rupp

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
3,604
0
Mercer Island, WA
For your reading pleasure:

A Wall Street Trader Draws Some Subprime Lessons: Michael Lewis

Commentary by Michael Lewis

Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- So right after the Bear Stearns funds blew up, I had a thought: This is what happens when you lend money to poor people.

Don't get me wrong: I have nothing personally against the poor. To my knowledge, I have nothing personally to do with the poor at all. It's not personal when a guy cuts your grass: that's business. He does what you say, you pay him. But you don't pay him in advance: That would be finance. And finance is one thing you should never engage in with the poor. (By poor, I mean anyone who the SEC wouldn't allow to invest in my hedge fund.)

That's the biggest lesson I've learned from the subprime crisis. Along the way, as these people have torpedoed my portfolio, I had some other thoughts about the poor. I'll share them with you.

1) They're masters of public relations.

I had no idea how my open-handedness could be made to look, after the fact. At the time I bought the subprime portfolio I thought: This is sort of like my way of giving something back. I didn't expect a profile in Philanthropy Today or anything like that. I mean, I bought at a discount. But I thought people would admire the Wall Street big shot who found a way to help the little guy. Sort of like a money doctor helping a sick person. Then the little guy wheels around and gives me this financial enema. And I'm the one who gets crap in the papers! Everyone feels sorry for the poor, and no one feels sorry for me. Even though it's my money! No good deed goes unpunished.

2) Poor people don't respect other people's money in the way money deserves to be respected.

Call me a romantic: I want everyone to have a shot at the American dream. Even people who haven't earned it. I did everything I could so that these schlubs could at least own their own place. The media is now making my generosity out to be some kind of scandal. Teaser rates weren't a scandal. Teaser rates were a sign of misplaced trust: I trusted these people to get their teams of lawyers to vet anything before they signed it. Turns out, if you're poor, you don't need to pay lawyers. You don't like the deal you just wave your hands in the air and moan about how poor you are. Then you default.

3) I've grown out of touch with ``poor culture.''

Hard to say when this happened; it might have been when I stopped flying commercial. Or maybe it was when I gave up the bleacher seats and got the suite. But the first rule in this business is to know the people you're in business with, and I broke it. People complain about the rich getting richer and the poor being left behind. Is it any wonder? Look at them! Did it ever occur to even one of them that they might pay me back by WORKING HARDER? I don't think so.

But as I say, it was my fault, for not studying the poor more closely before I lent them the money. When the only time you've ever seen a lion is in his cage in the zoo, you start thinking of him as a pet cat. You forget that he wants to eat you.

4) Our society is really, really hostile to success. At the same time it's shockingly indulgent of poor people.

A Republican president now wants to bail them out! I have a different solution. Debtors' prison is obviously a little too retro, and besides that it would just use more taxpayers' money. But the poor could work off their debts. All over Greenwich I see lawns to be mowed, houses to be painted, sports cars to be tuned up. Some of these poor people must have skills. The ones that don't could be trained to do some of the less skilled labor -- say, working as clowns at rich kids' birthday parties. They could even have an act: put them in clown suits and see how many can be stuffed into a Maybach. It'd be like the circus, only better.

Transporting entire neighborhoods of poor people to upper Manhattan and lower Connecticut might seem impractical. It's not: Mexico does this sort of thing routinely. And in the long run it might be for the good of poor people. If the consequences were more serious, maybe they wouldn't stay poor.

5) I think it's time we all become more realistic about letting the poor anywhere near Wall Street.

Lending money to poor countries was a bad idea: Does it make any more sense to lend money to poor people? They don't even have mineral rights!

There's a reason the rich aren't getting richer as fast as they should: they keep getting tangled up with the poor. It's unrealistic to say that Wall Street should cut itself off entirely from poor -- or, if you will, ``mainstream'' -- culture. As I say, I'll still do business with the masses. But I'll only engage in their finances if they can clump themselves together into a semblance of a rich person. I'll still accept pension fund money, for example. (Nothing under $50 million, please.) And I'm willing to finance the purchase of entire companies staffed basically with poor people. I did deals with Milken, before they broke him. I own some Blackstone. (Hang tough, Steve!)

But never again will I go one-on-one again with poor people. They're sharks.

(Michael Lewis is the author, most recently of ``The Blind Side,'' and is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The views he expresses are his own.)
 

landrovered

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2006
4,289
0
There are so many issues with the "rich guys" letter that I don't know where to start. I know one thing for sure, he is about to find out he has testicular cancer or some other terrible thing becasue Karma is a bitch.
 

apg

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2004
3,019
0
East Virginia
Mike_Rupp said:
oh, so the person that sat across the desk from the loan officer was too dumb to evaluate the loan?

APG, you are a Marxist.


I can't tell if you are being a dick and arguing just for argument's sake - or are really that clueless. Either way, it seems you are down with malfeasance, fraud, scandal and outright theft, as long as one doesn't get caught. Either way, you've lost any standing in this discussion.

My biggest gripe right now - both with this administration and this country - is that there's no such thing as accountability. Fuck up in totality and you get awarded a "presidential medal of freedom" for your troubles. "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." Steer your corporate ship onto the rocks of bankruptcy that costs your stockholders billions and your employees their livelihood - and get awarded a "parting gift" of a golden parachute worth millions. There were plenty of warnings for both Fannie and Freddie - as well as the other big financial players. If you are paid an eight-figure annual salary, you ought to be pretty smart in this regard.

But, unfortunately, there are no real consequences economic or otherwise for CEO's who fail utterly and completely - or an administration that takes us to war for entirely fictitious reasons. The bankruptcy of 158 year old Lehman's - the biggest in US history - has a price tag of about $639 billion; WorldCom was only $126 billion. Enron? A paltry $81 billion. Yet the Lehman CEO just bought a $23 million Park Avenue apartment AND a $15 million home in Florida. I guess he's not too worried about foreclosure.

Far from being a Marxist - I think that there have to be risks as well as rewards for any endeavour. One would think that the republican party's foundation on conservatism, free enterprise, and supposed self-sufficiency (i.e., opposition to handouts and welfare - both social and corporate) would be the underlying goal. But no. Let's privatize profits but socialize risk. Let's grab all we can and let the tax-payers be responsible for the detritus that remains. As long as you favor the social evasion of risk, failure will continue to have no consequences....to corporate execs or elected officials.
 

landrovered

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2006
4,289
0
Do I have to?

1. he thinks that he is better than everyone else and "deserves" not to suffer the masses.

2. Profiting off of the "poor" is charitable.

3. Rich people work harder than poor people.

4. the rich should not have to live near the poor, they have such bad taste you know.

5. He is a victim.
 

noee

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2004
1,887
0
Free Union, VA
Sandy, I hear ya, but what about Congress? And look at this character Frank and what he's proposing: Barney Frank is an Idiot

"House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said financial market turmoil is likely to force Congress and the administration to consider whether the U.S. government should buy distressed debt and mortgages.​

They're all involved -- deeply. And they're trying to bury the evidence.
 

MarkP

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
6,672
0
Colorado
And now the reality check . . . .

Whose policies led to the credit crisis?
September 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

The New York Times reported this five years ago:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. . . .

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.​

This should have been a no-brainer, right? With hindsight, we can see that the Bush administration had accurately diagnosed the problem in the lending market and had a plan to address it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reluctantly supported the plan. However, Democrats objected

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” . . .​

So significant regulatory overhaul was proposed 5 years ago, which means it was developed probably 6 to 7 years ago, at the beginning of President Bush's first term.

Which brings us back to the history of the credit issues.

A Short History of Subprime

The Fed's findings of discrimination and regulations developed in the 90's to relax "outdated criteria", intended to increase low-income home ownership, lacked adequate regulation after passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. Add to this the "financial nuclear weapons unleashed by Greenspan's policies" (per Bill Fleckenstein) and you have today's financial market mess. The Democrats objection to changes was rooted in the policies and perceptions developed in the 90's. It was also rooted in continuing the corruption occuring at Fannie Mae.
 
Last edited:

MarkP

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
6,672
0
Colorado
MarkP said:
From 2003 -

. . . ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” . . . . . .


So let's follow the money to find out why the Democrats were against significantly overhauling oversight during President Bush's first term.

Fannie Mae's Patron Saint
WSJ
SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Taxpayers are now on the hook for as much as $200 billion to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if you want to know why, look no further than the rapid response to this bailout from House baron Barney Frank. . . .

. . .

In January of last year, Mr. Frank also noted one reason he liked Fannie and Freddie so much: They were subject to his political direction. Contrasting Fan and Fred with private-sector mortgage financers, he noted, "I can ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to show forbearance" in a housing crisis. That is to say, because Fannie and Freddie are political creatures, Mr. Frank believed they would do his bidding.

And this is exactly what Mr. Frank attempted to prove when the housing market started to go south. He encouraged the companies to guarantee more "affordable" mortgages, thus abetting their disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans. He also pushed for, and got, an increase in the conforming-loan limits to allow Fan and Fred to securitize and guarantee larger mortgages. And he pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements -- which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.

But the biggest payoff for Mr. Frank is the "affordable housing" trust fund he managed to push through as one political price for the recent Fannie reform bill. This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests. . . .​
 
Last edited:

noee

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2004
1,887
0
Free Union, VA
Unbelievable, I had no idea. If Bush should be locked up for his illegal war, Frank should be hung from the yard-arms.
 

Mike_Rupp

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
3,604
0
Mercer Island, WA
Apg, I must have struck paydirt in calling you a Marxist. It is undeniable that you have Marxist sympathies. When asked if the borrowers were to blame as well, you responded "nah". You obviously think that the capitalist pigs have been exploiting the poor hapless honest worker bees by tricking them into these sub-prime loans. Do you have a Che t-shirt?

You brought up socializing risk and privatizing profits. How about the borrowers? They profited by these sub-prime loans and then foreclosed when the market changed. Because of the foreclosures, the banks and ultimately the rest of us are bearing the risk.
 

az_max

1
Apr 22, 2005
7,463
2
MarkP said:
So let's follow the money to find out why the Democrats were against significantly overhauling oversight during President Bush's first term.

Fannie Mae's Patron Saint
WSJ
SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Taxpayers are now on the hook for as much as $200 billion to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if you want to know why, look no further than the rapid response to this bailout from House baron Barney Frank. . . .

. . .

In January of last year, Mr. Frank also noted one reason he liked Fannie and Freddie so much: They were subject to his political direction. Contrasting Fan and Fred with private-sector mortgage financers, he noted, "I can ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to show forbearance" in a housing crisis. That is to say, because Fannie and Freddie are political creatures, Mr. Frank believed they would do his bidding.

And this is exactly what Mr. Frank attempted to prove when the housing market started to go south. He encouraged the companies to guarantee more "affordable" mortgages, thus abetting their disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans. He also pushed for, and got, an increase in the conforming-loan limits to allow Fan and Fred to securitize and guarantee larger mortgages. And he pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements -- which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.

But the biggest payoff for Mr. Frank is the "affordable housing" trust fund he managed to push through as one political price for the recent Fannie reform bill. This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests. . . .​

he does deseve to be lynched by a mob. Stuff like that is why I'm in favor of term limits on all elected officials. It may not kill off all special interest and pork spending, but it will limit it.