Knower of History Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No shit. You're the only one that plays fast and
> loose with the facts and history to the point of
> reinventing them altogether.

Blow me, you worthless ignorant fucktard. It would be the first productive thing you've done today, you contemptible little worm.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knower of History Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No shit. You're the only one that plays fast
> and
> > loose with the facts and history to the point
> of
> > reinventing them altogether.
>
> Blow me, you worthless ignorant fucktard. It
> would be the first productive thing you've done
> today, you contemptible little worm.

I realize a person as pathetic and deplorable as you has probably received very little to no oral stimulation over your lifetime, and I don't foresee your prospects improving by propositioning me. In fact, I think we can put the same percentage on that happening as you looking intelligent in this thread - exactly 0%.

You're a know-nothing numb-nuts assfuck who just plain doesn't have the balls to play with the big boys.

It really was Bush's fault: did you foreclose retard?

It really wass Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're a know-nothing numb-nuts assfuck who just
> plain doesn't have the balls to play with the big
> boys.


the braying jackass award.

Foreclosed on the know-nothing copy-and-paste assfuck. He's out of here. Probably off to drown his copious sorrows at some seedy Falls Church watering hole.

OK OK... You win... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the braying jackass award.

Reduced to the crayons and coloring book level once again? How unsurprising. Another illustration if you will of why I always win and you always take it in the shorts. Life is just like that when you're nothing more than a worthless goober asshole.

Homeowners speculate and lose and they are deadbeats. Banks lie and fraudulently sell bogus loan portfolios, underwriters lie and say they are AAA when the know they are subprime, Banks actually insure against inevitable failure so as to receive premiums on the fraud they perpetuated then get billions from the tax payers just because.

love it.

It really wass Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're a know-nothing numb-nuts assfuck who just
> plain doesn't have the balls to play with the big
> boys.


Big boys play with facts and logic. Oh, and another pro tip for you, most big boys don't proposition other men for oral sex even after getting their asses handed to them. Looks like you're still in diapers, small fry.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So you just let you home equity sit out there like a mirage in the desert?

You really aren't very bright are you. About 66% of our equity DISAPPEARED in 2-3 years. If we had taken out that money we still would have OWED it to the bank. And if we had spent it on consumables we would have been screwed.


> At the least -- and assuming you had a pre-2000
> mortgage -- you should have refinanced three times
> and booked those imaginary gains into real gains.
> If you didn't, you really messed up. Chance of a
> lifetime just blew right by you.

Yes, we have refinanced our mortgage 2X in the last 6 years. But only the existing principal owed - nothing additional. And still have taken no equity out. It's the prudent thing to do.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Foreclosed on the know-nothing copy-and-paste
> assfuck. He's out of here.

Still here and laughing my ass off at humiliating a useless troll like you.

> Probably off to drown
> his copious sorrows at some seedy Falls Church
> watering hole.

And why would I venture down Great Falls or Route 7 on a night like tonight. Traffic is usually bad enough at this hour without the weather. No thanks, I'll stay put in my neck of the woods.

Speaking of which, sound like you've been hitting the bottle pretty early today. That'd be the only excuse for your stupidity here.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK OK... You win... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the braying jackass award.
>
> Reduced to the crayons and coloring book level
> once again? How unsurprising. Another
> illustration if you will of why I always win and
> you always take it in the shorts. Life is just
> like that when you're nothing more than a
> worthless goober asshole.


That's all that your constant braying merits jackass.

Now Now "Professor" Stop with the potty mouth and the oral ragging. The gentlemen who run the Knoa Coffee estate don't sell to Common Riff Raff. You may have to start getting the "Hawaiian" blend in the K Cups at Costco.

Don't get so P.O ed. You post Democrat SPIN here all the time.

You have some facts and you know some things, The problem is that you SPIN them to make Democrats look good for votes. Your doing so poorly here ,I hope you get your next pay check as a professional Shill.

With YOU on their side Hillery nor Warren the red blooded "American Indian" don't have a chance in 16. And Thats good news. So I say THANKS!

and then there's the facts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of which, sound like you've been hitting
> the bottle pretty early today. That'd be the only
> excuse for your stupidity here.

The usual worthless nonsense and irrelevant stupid shit. It really was Bush's fault. He fucked it all up. Watch the cartoon, asshole. Better yourself for once, if that's even fucking possible...

http://crisisofcredit.com/

commonsense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, we have refinanced our mortgage 2X in the
> last 6 years. But only the existing principal
> owed - nothing additional. And still have taken
> no equity out. It's the prudent thing to do.

It may or may not have been prudent, depending on what your alternate earning rates might have been. As with most things, the hard and fast rules often aren't as hard and fast as people claim. Refinancing as rates fell however was simply money in the bank.

Barney Frank June 27, 2005 - House Floor

"We have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about home ownership and it's role in the economy. Obviously speculation is never a good thing. But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to me to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples we have had where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems. We are talking here about an entity, home ownership, homes, where there is not the degree of leverage that we have seen elsewhere. This is not the dot com situation. We had problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality, with people building fiber optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level but you're not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble. So those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push toward home ownership."

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> commonsense Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, we have refinanced our mortgage 2X in the
> > last 6 years. But only the existing principal
> > owed - nothing additional. And still have
> taken
> > no equity out. It's the prudent thing to do.
>
> It may or may not have been prudent, depending on
> what your alternate earning rates might have been.
> As with most things, the hard and fast rules
> often aren't as hard and fast as people claim.
> Refinancing as rates fell however was simply money
> in the bank.

Yeah, most people that got foreclosed on after taking out their home equity were investing it. Sure.

Barney Franklin Raines Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barney Frank June 27, 2005 - House Floor

Already dealt with, goober. This is pushback against what was then Bush's latest attempt to scuttle the GSE's by capping the levels of their portfolios and other means. This was via the infamous S.190 that Majority Leader Frist never put on the calendar because he knew full well that even with a 55-45 majority in the Senate he could never get to the 51 votes needed to pass the bill. On the House side, Mike Oxley was able to get a major GSE reform package passed as H.R. 1461 by a margin of 361-90. Bush gave it the famous "one-finger salute". It was never taken up in the Senate. Bush was simply not interested in bills that dealt with the sorts of safety and soundness issues that most wanted to see addressed. Bush just wanted to carve out market share and send it off to Wall Street. That's all.

commonsense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So you just let you home equity sit out there
> like a mirage in the desert?
>
> You really aren't very bright are you. About 66%
> of our equity DISAPPEARED in 2-3 years. If we had
> taken out that money we still would have OWED it
> to the bank. And if we had spent it on
> consumables we would have been screwed.
>
>
> > At the least -- and assuming you had a pre-2000
> > mortgage -- you should have refinanced three
> times
> > and booked those imaginary gains into real
> gains.
> > If you didn't, you really messed up. Chance of
> a
> > lifetime just blew right by you.
>
> Yes, we have refinanced our mortgage 2X in the
> last 6 years. But only the existing principal
> owed - nothing additional. And still have taken
> no equity out. It's the prudent thing to do.

@@@@@@@@@@@On the other hand, if you take money out and do the unusual thing of not spending it, but rather investing it in something where you make more than the interest rate you are paying on your mortgage, you come out ahead.

But, there probably aren't too many people who would do that.

Friends of Angelo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
-- Raines quote --

To your plainly limited knowledge was the statement made by Mr. Raines correct?

Yes, in fact it was correct. Which only goes to underscore the monstrous degree to which the Bushies had to fuck things up in order to make housing prices fall all over the place. This was an epic and cataclysmic failure that the moron Republicans managed to pull off.

newgatedenizen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, most people that got foreclosed on after taking
> out their home equity were investing it. Sure.

Goes to the matter of whether taking out equity would have been prudent or not. You apparently don't understand any of this either.

on the other hand............ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @@@@@@@@@@@On the other hand, if you take money
> out and do the unusual thing of not spending it,
> but rather investing it in something where you
> make more than the interest rate you are paying
> on your mortgage, you come out ahead.

Or if you are able to use the equity to extinguish existing debt carrying a higher interest rate, or to finance an expense you were committed to making anyway and were intending to boroow at a higher rate to pay for.

> But, there probably aren't too many people who
> would do that.

Really? And in any case, the theoretical question of whether not taking out equity was a prudent move would still depend on what alternative rates of return were available at the time.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and then there's the facts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Speaking of which, sound like you've been
> hitting
> > the bottle pretty early today. That'd be the
> only
> > excuse for your stupidity here.
>
> The usual worthless nonsense and irrelevant stupid
> shit. It really was Bush's fault. He fucked it
> all up. Watch the cartoon, asshole. Better
> yourself for once, if that's even fucking
> possible...
>
> http://crisisofcredit.com/


TRANSLATION: "You hit the nail on the head. I am an idiotic drunk that gets my economic information from a cartoon by some art school graduate hack. What could go wrong?"

and then there's the facts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TRANSLATION: "You hit the nail on the head. I am
> an idiotic drunk that gets my economic information
> from a cartoon by some art school graduate hack.
> What could go wrong?"

All 11 minutes went right over your tiny little goober head, eh? What a colossal fucking shock.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barney Franklin Raines Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Barney Frank June 27, 2005 - House Floor
>
> Already dealt with, goober. This is pushback
> against what was then Bush's latest attempt to
> scuttle the GSE's by capping the levels of their
> portfolios and other means. This was via the
> infamous S.190 that Majority Leader Frist never
> put on the calendar because he knew full well that
> even with a 55-45 majority in the Senate he could
> never get to the 51 votes needed to pass the bill.
> On the House side, Mike Oxley was able to get a
> major GSE reform package passed as H.R. 1461 by a
> margin of 361-90. Bush gave it the famous
> "one-finger salute". It was never taken up in the
> Senate. Bush was simply not interested in bills
> that dealt with the sorts of safety and soundness
> issues that most wanted to see addressed. Bush
> just wanted to carve out market share and send it
> off to Wall Street. That's all.


Rrrright. Barney's top 20 bestest friends...


1 State Street Corp $20,000 $17,000 $3,000
2 UBS AG $17,600 $17,600 $0
3 FMR Corp $13,750 $3,750 $10,000
4 JPMorgan Chase & Co $13,500 $3,500 $10,000
5 Nixon Peabody LLP $12,670 $2,670 $10,000
6 Ernst & Young $11,750 $1,750 $10,000
7 Citigroup Inc $11,250 $1,250 $10,000
7 Human Rights Campaign $11,250 $1,250 $10,000
9 Washington Mutual $11,000 $0 $11,000
10 PricewaterhouseCoopers $10,250 $250 $10,000
11 America's Community Bankers $10,234 $1,000 $9,234
12 American Assn for Justice $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 American Land Title Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 Credit Union National Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 KPMG LLP $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 Mortgage Bankers Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 National Assn of Home Builders $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 National Assn of Insurance & Financial Advisors $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 National Assn of Mortgage Brokers $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 National Assn of Real Estate Investment Trusts $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 New York Life Insurance $10,000 $0 $10,000
12 UBS Americas $10,000 $0 $10,000


(Not counting significant real estate and derivative investments held by the insurance companies and other real estate related PAC contributions.)

Barney's Open Secrets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rrrright. Barney's top 20 bestest friends...

How freaking dumb are you, stooge-boy? Barney Frank's Republican counterpart on the House Financial Services Committee was Michael Oxley. Every name on the Frank list would also appear on the Oxley list. People expecting to have business or interests before a committee contribute on both sides of the political aisle so that they can have some recognition to work from regardless of which party happens to be in power. You just don't understand how the game is played. At all.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and then there's the facts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TRANSLATION: "You hit the nail on the head. I
> am
> > an idiotic drunk that gets my economic
> information
> > from a cartoon by some art school graduate hack.
>
> > What could go wrong?"
>
> All 11 minutes went right over your tiny little
> goober head, eh? What a colossal fucking shock.


TRANSLATION: "Economics is best taught by cartoon drawing art school graduates. Well, I could never understand the writings of a real economist, so I'll stick to the cartoons."

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barney's Open Secrets Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rrrright. Barney's top 20 bestest friends...
>
> How freaking dumb are you, stooge-boy? Barney
> Frank's Republican counterpart on the House
> Financial Services Committee was Michael Oxley.
> Every name on the Frank list would also appear on
> the Oxley list. People expecting to have business
> or interests before a committee contribute on both
> sides of the political aisle so that they can
> have some recognition to work from regardless of
> which party happens to be in power. You just
> don't understand how the game is played. At all.


Apparently he does. The only dipshits who clearly don't understand how the game is played are those that would completely dismiss the minority party as inconsequential in any circumstance. The lobbyists giving the cash clearly understand the importance of the Ranking Member of a Committee, the poster listing his contributors understands that importance. The only one who doesn't understand how the game is played is the idiot that said the minority called NONE of the shots.

and then there's the facts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TRANSLATION: "Economics is best taught by cartoon
> drawing art school graduates. Well, I could never
> understand the writings of a real economist, so
> I'll stick to the cartoons."

So, you're still completely out of relevant things to say, but have this ENVY- and BUTTHURT-driven need to post crap anyway. I meanwhile have enough of an economics background to be able to tell you that the cartoon presents a rather accurate overview of the road to the credit crisis except for its unfortunate confusion between subprime lending and abuse of subprime credit markets. There is nothing wrong with the former. The latter of course can become a very big problem if perhaps left unchecked by goober laissez-faire regulators.

PG county I can see, but Fairfax, hasn't it recovered for the most part from 2005?

I know in my "hood", homes are just about the same price as they were in the peak of the bubble. Fully renovated with nice finishes etc, they are actually going for above 2005 - 2006 prices.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and then there's the facts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TRANSLATION: "Economics is best taught by
> cartoon
> > drawing art school graduates. Well, I could
> never
> > understand the writings of a real economist, so
> > I'll stick to the cartoons."
>
> So, you're still completely out of relevant things
> to say, but have this ENVY- and BUTTHURT-driven
> need to post crap anyway. I meanwhile have enough
> of an economics background to be able to tell you
> that the cartoon presents a rather accurate
> overview of the road to the credit crisis except
> for its unfortunate confusion between subprime
> lending and abuse of subprime credit markets.
> There is nothing wrong with the former. The
> latter of course can become a very big problem if
> perhaps left unchecked by goober laissez-faire
> regulators.

TRANSLATION: "After getting my ass handed to me multiple times over, I'll continue to come her to whine like a little bitch. Even I don't know why someone would be envious of someone who gets their economics lessons from cartoons made by art school graduates."

time to play the game Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Barney's Open Secrets Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Rrrright. Barney's top 20 bestest friends...
> >
> > How freaking dumb are you, stooge-boy? Barney
> > Frank's Republican counterpart on the House
> > Financial Services Committee was Michael Oxley.
>
> > Every name on the Frank list would also appear
> on
> > the Oxley list. People expecting to have
> business
> > or interests before a committee contribute on
> both
> > sides of the political aisle so that they can
> > have some recognition to work from regardless
> of
> > which party happens to be in power. You just
> > don't understand how the game is played. At
> all.
>
>
> Apparently he does. The only dipshits who clearly
> don't understand how the game is played are those
> that would completely dismiss the minority party
> as inconsequential in any circumstance. The
> lobbyists giving the cash clearly understand the
> importance of the Ranking Member of a Committee,
> the poster listing his contributors understands
> that importance. The only one who doesn't
> understand how the game is played is the idiot
> that said the minority called NONE of the shots.


Exactly right.

There are two people who would claim that Frank had no role. Frank and the dumbass here. And Frank knows that he's lying.

I have no problem at all blaming Republicans for their own fuck ups. Plenty of blame all around on this one. From politicians on all sides to banks, mortgage brokers, the GSEs who facilitated the market for the crap, rating agencies, the real estate lobby, agents, appraisers, local governments, activist groups like ACORN pressuring banks, builders and developers, agents, individual investors, all the way down to the buyers.

See that's the difference normal humans who can view things from an objective standpoint and understand the various roles played versus a hyper-partisan fucktard who tried to blame a 20-year cycle of greed and mass delusion on Bush. lol Dumbshit.

The same dumbass who thinks the Repubs are solely to blame for the financial crisis is probably the same idiot who thinks no Dems voted for the War in Iraq.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

>I know in my "hood", homes are just about the same price as they were in the peak of the bubble. Fully renovated with nice finishes etc, they are actually going for above 2005 - 2006 prices.

Are 2 BR Condos in Annandale going for 250K yet? Not slurring the above poster as to his "hood" but at the height of the "bubble " thats what they were. Im talking Americana Drive garden condos, Little River Square, the old ones. Not any with elevators or Woodburn Village.

"Professor Of Economics" Aka "AHT" Old "Buddy" you slow down now. Dont want to see you blow like that Home Prices skyrocket did, You know the one Barney Frank and Your Democrat pals launched. And Your blaming Bush?? Shame on You!
By the way Wink! Did "Ronnie" Fire You and get you in such a UpRoar?

Relax enjoy the KONA spelled right this time! Did You bail the people out yet Daddy Big Bucks? Arn't they "worthy" enough. My Golly you sure have defended them here.

You sleep good here! Im a a kind hearted Republican , wish you well pal. Really! Im Not kidding a bit I enjoy your historical look at the issues, even though you Spin it a bit too much to the left. And I enjoy sparring on the key strokes with you here even though you've got a lot on me with knowledge of some issues , I will admit it. Goodnight.

time to play the game Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently he does. The only dipshits who clearly
> don't understand how the game is played are those
> that would completely dismiss the minority party
> as inconsequential in any circumstance. The
> lobbyists giving the cash clearly understand the
> importance of the Ranking Member of a Committee,
> the poster listing his contributors understands
> that importance. The only one who doesn't
> understand how the game is played is the idiot
> that said the minority called NONE of the shots.

Try to follow along. Lobbyists do not dismiss anybody. They contribute to both sides -- the one that's in power now and the one that's not but will be again later on. The same financial interests who were funneling money to Barney Franks were funneling it to Michael Oxley as well. This is like Remedial Government 087.

The minority however does not call any of the shots. It's that simple. Between 1995 and 2001, Barney Frank would have somehow had to sneak his evil plans past a Republican committee and committee chairman, a Republican Speaker and House, then a Republican Majority Leader and Senate. Between 2001 and 2007, he would have had to do all that and then get it signed by a Republican President as well. None of this actually happened. Barney Frank could speak at hearings and meetings and talk until he was blue in the face, and that's all he could do. He had no power at all beyond telling other people what he thought should be done. It was other people who did all the doing. Here is how Rep. Frank himself put it...

"According to the Republican version of the history of the financial crisis, [I am] responsible for the fact that no legislation passed the Congress to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until 2007, and no bill trying to restrict subprime lending passed the House between 1994 and 2007. The problem with their argument is that the Republicans were in power from 1995 through 2006 in the House, and they had complete control over what legislation did or did not pass.

Being accused of having blocked legislation to prohibit irresponsible lending to low-income people from 1995 to 2006 is flattering in a bizarre way. Apparently those Republicans parroting these right-wing talking points believe that I had some heretofore undisclosed power over first Newt Gingrich and then Tom DeLay, which allowed me to keep them from passing legislation they wanted to pass. If that had been true, I would have used that power to block the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the House, the war in Iraq, large tax cuts for the very wealthy, the intrusion into the sad case of Terri Schiavo, and appropriations bills that badly underfunded important social priorities."

-- Rep. Barney Frank, Mar 12, 2009

and then there's the facts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TRANSLATION: "After getting my ass handed to me
> multiple times over, I'll continue to come her to
> whine like a little bitch. Even I don't know why
> someone would be envious of someone who gets their
> economics lessons from cartoons made by art school
> graduates."

Another in what has become a typically extended and overlong series of statements that in an episode of Perry Mason would quickly have been described as "incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial." Your nothingness knows too few bounds.

Purple Dino Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly right. There are two people who would claim
> that Frank had no role. Frank and the dumbass here.

If so, they would each be correct, as the lack of anything but prepubescent slop form your side continues to underscore.

> I have no problem at all blaming Republicans for
> their own fuck ups. Plenty of blame all around on
> this one.

Not really. Out of control cowboy capitalists on Wall Street, and a bunch of incompetent, do-nothing, Ayn Rand-reading regulators in Washington.

> See that's the difference normal humans who can
> view things from an objective standpoint and
> understand the various roles played versus a
> hyper-partisan fucktard who tried to blame a
> 20-year cycle of greed and mass delusion on Bush.
> lol Dumbshit.

A 20-year cycle of greed? LOL! Go sit by the phone and wait for the Nobel committee to call. Did you meanwhile understand the graph above that shows GSE secondary market share plummeting as Wall Street's private-label securitizers moved in? Do you understand that the GSEs imposed up-front standards on what loans they would purchase and the private-label shops did not? Do you understand that Wall street was simply unwilling to shut down its lucrative stream of profits and bonuses just because there were no more qualified borrowers out there to feed into the machine? If you want a peak into that world, either read or listen to "The Giant Pool of Money" at the site below...

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/transcript

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and then there's the facts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TRANSLATION: "After getting my ass handed to
> me
> > multiple times over, I'll continue to come her
> to
> > whine like a little bitch. Even I don't know
> why
> > someone would be envious of someone who gets
> their
> > economics lessons from cartoons made by art
> school
> > graduates."
>
> Another in what has become a typically extended
> and overlong series of statements that in an
> episode of Perry Mason would quickly have been
> described as "incompetent, irrelevant, and
> immaterial." Your nothingness knows too few
> bounds.


TRANSLATION: "I'm so outsmarted and outclassed in this thread. With each post I make, I show myself to the world as a worthless and unintelligent boob."

Many many Democrats supported and had tight relationships with mortgage companies like Countrywide and Washington Mutual, as well as investment banks such as Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. To pretend this is solely a GOP problem is ludicrous. Many of those bankers so hated by this Occupy leftover posting on this thread spent a fortune lobbying Democrats - many of them ARE Democrats and voted Democrat.

Who in Congress got the most political contributions from Lehman Bros. in 2004?
Dems: $739,000
Reps: $273,438

Fact.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000174&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2004

Here's my question...they paid $60K down and made all their mortgage payments on time for 2+ years before the bottom fell out. Assuming a $540K loan at the sub-prime interest rate at the time they were probably paying what...$2200-$2500 per month (not including escrow)?

If they haven't been paying for 6 years because what, their ARM probably jumped to $5K+ per month while the house started appraising for less than the loan value meaning they couldn't refinance. They should have a shit ton of money put away. If you just stop paying your mortgage for 6 years and it was lets say $2250 a month, that's $162,000 they should have put away. I've got $10 that says they've got about $500 in the bank right now.

This same thing happened to a friend of mine...bought in Ashburn at the top of the market at $700K home, put down $80K on a 3 year ARM and within 18 months the market crashed (2008). At the end of the ARM, his payment jumps to $5500+ (Escrow not included), and his home now appraised at about $550K. He gets no refinance...lives in the house and pays his taxes and HOI for 5 years while not paying his mortgage. Finally gets the bank to agree to a short sale (better than a foreclosure) and sells the house, pays the tax penalty on the difference, and still has over $100K put away because he packed his monthly mortgage payments into CD's. Bought a new house and is just fine.

I hate these stories when the homeowner doesn't pay the mortgage AND blows the money like they all of the sudden have extra income. So stupid. Throw them out on their asses...you deserve to what you get.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The same dumbass who thinks the Repubs are solely
> to blame for the financial crisis is probably the
> same idiot who thinks no Dems voted for the War in
> Iraq.

This again? The October 2002 vote on the AUMF for Iraq was a done deal. Bush had the votes he needed to pass it. The last of the drama had already ended when Daschle left the White House with no changes in the language at all. For those whose votes were not already in Bush's pocket, this became a conscience vote. Either you could vote to present a united front to the world, letting politics end at the water's edge and trusting the President to follow through on his word as he prepared to go to the UN, pledging to get a new resolution to resolve the Iraq situation peacefully, or you could vote your conviction that Bush was a serial liar who couldn't be taken at his word on anything. Events since have shown which of those paths was the more realistic.

delusionalagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many many Democrats supported and had tight
> relationships with mortgage companies like
> Countrywide and Washington Mutual, as well as
> investment banks such as Bear Stearns, Merrill
> Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Goldman
> Sachs.

So what?

> To pretend this is solely a GOP problem is ludicrous.

Sorry, Charlie. Only god-tasting tuna get to be Starkist, and all the actors who pulled all the strings that sent us into all the ditches were either cowboy capitalists on Wall Street or braindead Republican regulators in Washington. Bad fiscal policy, bad monetary policy, and bad regulatory policy. All of it on W's ill-fated card.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> delusionalagain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Many many Democrats supported and had tight
> > relationships with mortgage companies like
> > Countrywide and Washington Mutual, as well as
> > investment banks such as Bear Stearns, Merrill
> > Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and
> Goldman
> > Sachs.
>
> So what?
>
> > To pretend this is solely a GOP problem is
> ludicrous.
>
> Sorry, Charlie. Only god-tasting tuna get to be
> Starkist, and all the actors who pulled all the
> strings that sent us into all the ditches were
> either cowboy capitalists on Wall Street or
> braindead Republican regulators in Washington.
> Bad fiscal policy, bad monetary policy, and bad
> regulatory policy. All of it on W's ill-fated
> card.


To hear Barney Frank tell it, he bears no responsibility for the housing bubble or for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But his record as a member of the House Financial Services Committee tells a different story. As far back as 1991, Frank was pushing Fannie Mae to break its rules, lower its standards, and buy risky loans. As The Boston Globe reported in November 1992, he helped to convince Fannie Mae to make “substantial concessions” on its rules regarding multiple-family-home mortgages, despite data from Fannie itself showing that the “default rate on mortgages on two-family homes is twice that of single-family homes, and the rate for three-deckers is five times the rate for single-family dwellings.” During the Clinton years, the time when the foundation was being poured for the financial meltdown, Fannie and Freddie were growing by leaps and bounds. They underwrote more than a trillion dollars in mortgages, and Fannie reported double-digit growth, every year. In assessing what—if any—responsibility the Clinton administration had for the financial crisis, Clinton himself would later tell ABC News’s Chris Cuomo that “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president to put some standards and tighten up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> delusionalagain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Many many Democrats supported and had tight
> > relationships with mortgage companies like
> > Countrywide and Washington Mutual, as well as
> > investment banks such as Bear Stearns, Merrill
> > Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and
> Goldman
> > Sachs.
>
> So what?


Geez... ya got me there. Political contributions indicate nothing I guess.


>
> > To pretend this is solely a GOP problem is
> ludicrous.
>
> Sorry, Charlie. Only god-tasting tuna get to be
> Starkist, and all the actors who pulled all the
> strings that sent us into all the ditches were
> either cowboy capitalists on Wall Street or
> braindead Republican regulators in Washington.
> Bad fiscal policy, bad monetary policy, and bad
> regulatory policy. All of it on W's ill-fated
> card.

Face it nothing could dissuade you. A lot of those "cowboy capitalists" you refer to were then and are now Democrats. And you really think all "regulators" are Republicans? You are a brain-washed partisan HACK. Nothing more.

Shilling for Democrats all over FXU

Maxine Waters and Barney Fag are the two most guilty parties with respect to the housing mess. Both are Democrats. Bush had nothing to do with it.

Oh, by the way, did you hear that lisping faggot speak on behalf of the White House about the Taliban. Where do the Democrats get your speakers from, off-Broadway?

He's A Paid Hack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shilling for Democrats all over FXU


You'd have to be pretty desperate to pay him a single cent for his writing (or lack thereof) skills.

I love you, you love me... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To hear Barney Frank tell it, he bears no
> responsibility for the housing bubble or for the
> failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. This is just another bit of unoriginal hack-level copy-and-paste, this time from Bruce Feirstein, the "humorist" most noted for writing "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche". Trust me, he's no historian or economist. He's just a clown.

Meanwhile, you've already been handed the overview of the 2000's, but the 1990's were quite a different time. Here's a bit of how.

In the 1990's, Bill Clinton was busy putting some teeth into the 15-year old but still unenforced CRA, but what started out as a CRA stick soon became a carrot, as CRA portfolios of that decade would blossom to perform better than industry averages. All those heretofore red-lined and ignored low- and moderate-income communities that had for decades simply been abandoned by traditional lenders into the hands of the rapacious finance companies were suddenly being discovered as vast new pools for potentially profitable lending. It was like the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill. After all, almost half of CRA's new borrowers had panned out as prime, and almost all the rest were at Alt-A, the level just below prime. It's easy to make money lending to such people and that's just what CRA-covered institutions were doing. Meanwhile, property values in CRA neighborhoods were increasing as was outside investment in neighborhood infrastructure. It turned out that CRA was both good policy and good business.

The GSE's had meanwhile begun experimenting with sample portfolios from this new subprime sector that had been opened up. They assumed that as subprime markets grew and matured, they would come to play the same sort of role there that they already played in prime markets. Unfortunately, things would not turn out that way, as Wall Street was able to head the good guys off at the pass. In the late 1990's meanwhile, the Russian and Asian financial crises wiped out several key players among the finance companies, creating a credit vacuum in LMI communities that CRA institutions were not yet ready to fill. Into the breach jumped an ambitious but unfortunately unscrupulous new breed of private sector brokers with names like Countrywide, Ameriquest, and New Century Financial. Their roles in greasing the skids for the coming crisis have already been outlined above, but suffice it to say that this was where they got their big break and they were happy to have the new business.

Meanwhile, like every administration since FDR, Clinton's had a goal of expanding home ownership. He gave it a little extra emphasis perhaps in that Reagan and Bush-41 had just become the only two Presidents to FAIL in this objective. CRA was one part of it. Extending the reach of modern financial tools and techniques into other traditionally underserved areas was another. So was encouragement to the construction and finance industries generally to find new, better, and more flexible ways of building homes and then putting people in them on a sustainable basis. The National Home Ownership Strategy put together in 1995 by public, private, academic, and non-profit experts from around the country listed 100 practical steps to ease and broaden paths to home ownership, and the sorry ownership trends of the 1980's were indeed turned around.

The 1990's also saw two bits of Republican wet-dream legislation passed and signed by Clinton. Gramm-Leach-Bliley repealed two parts of the 1930's Glass-Steagall Act to allow commercial banks, brokerages, and insurance companies to operate under the same roof and have the same directors. Banks and brokers had been operating that way in spite of the law since the mid-1980's. Travelers and CitiCorp had merged in direct violation of existing law a year before the new one was passed. The Fed promptly gave them an exemption for the deal. GLB essentially brought the law up to date with what had already become established practice.

Then there was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It contained the infamous "Enron loophole" that allowed certain types of futures contracts to be traded on exchanges in the United states for the first time. There were no such exchanges in the US at that time, and by the time those existed, Enron no longer did. Futures trading simply went on as usual on European and other exchanges in the meantime. CFMA also promised that Congress would take no action to regulate OTC derivatives markets as CFTC Chair Brooksley Born had thought to propose in 1998, thereby creating quite a kerfuffle. But this promise simply extended the status quo, as OTC derivatives had traded on "dark markets" ever since they had been exempted from regulation in the waning days of the Bush-41 administration by Brooksley Born's predecessor, Wendy Gramm, the wife of Phil Gramm, the author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, who had herself gone on to sit on the board of Enron. It's all so incestuous!

As for Barney Frank, he was instrumental in the 1994 creation within the Fed of powers to regulate subprime credit markets that Alan Greenspan would later refuse to use. Frank stood four-square behind Clinton's calls for modernized access to home ownership, and also worked to expand the types of housing that the GSE's could purchase notes on. He worked particularly hard on the matter of modular housing as that technology began to come online. In stark contrast to what would emerge on the right, Barney Frank was concerned with both the mission and the safety of the GSE's,

So there are some tidbits about yet another decade that a lot of you simply let fly by without taking any notice. So many episodes of Friends, Seinfeld, ER, and The Simpsons to keep up with. How did those turn out for you?

delusionalagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geez... ya got me there. Political contributions
> indicate nothing I guess.

Not those from industry groups and lobbyists. They play both sides of the street.

> Face it nothing could dissuade you. A lot of
> those "cowboy capitalists" you refer to were then
> and are now Democrats. And you really think all
> "regulators" are Republicans? You are a
> brain-washed partisan HACK. Nothing more.

LOL! Cowboy capitalism is not the province of liberals. These are your basic rape-the-land, take-no-prisoners, profiteering, money-grubbing, bottom-line-focused scum-suckers. Bunch of 47%-trampling Romneyists basically, and what a shame HE'S dropped out like that! What a loss. At least there's still Palin and whatever drugs she's been taking.

And do you really think that Bush appointed a lot of Democrats? Do you think bureaucrats aren't constrained by the policies coming down from the top? Bush was all about creating his "ownership society". The problem with that is that what most folks own is just MORE RISK. And what a few folks own is MORE OF WHAT USED TO BE YOUR MONEY. It's not such a great deal, really.

He's A Paid Hack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shilling for Democrats all over FXU

LOL! I don't need the money. But I do find it amusingly bizarre that some people believe there are actual positions to be had as preacher to places like FFXU. Like that's the only explanation for things here that you can come up with. What a joke!!!

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love you, you love me... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To hear Barney Frank tell it, he bears no
> > responsibility for the housing bubble or for
> the
> > failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
>
> Stupid, stupid, stupid. This is just another bit
> of unoriginal hack-level copy-and-paste, this time
> from Bruce Feirstein, the "humorist" most noted
> for writing "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche". Trust
> me, he's no historian or economist. He's just a
> clown.

+1

Much better to get your schooling in economics from a cartoonist who graduated art school!

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love you, you love me... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To hear Barney Frank tell it, he bears no
> > responsibility for the housing bubble or for
> the
> > failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
>
> Stupid, stupid, stupid. This is just another bit
> of unoriginal hack-level copy-and-paste, this time
> from Bruce Feirstein, the "humorist" most noted
> for writing "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche". Trust
> me, he's no historian or economist. He's just a
> clown.
>
> Meanwhile, you've already been handed the overview
> of the 2000's, but the 1990's were quite a
> different time. Here's a bit of how.
>
> In the 1990's, Bill Clinton was busy putting some
> teeth into the 15-year old but still unenforced
> CRA, but what started out as a CRA stick soon
> became a carrot, as CRA portfolios of that decade
> would blossom to perform better than industry
> averages. All those heretofore red-lined and
> ignored low- and moderate-income communities that
> had for decades simply been abandoned by
> traditional lenders into the hands of the
> rapacious finance companies were suddenly being
> discovered as vast new pools for potentially
> profitable lending. It was like the discovery of
> gold at Sutter's Mill. After all, almost half of
> CRA's new borrowers had panned out as prime, and
> almost all the rest were at Alt-A, the level just
> below prime. It's easy to make money lending to
> such people and that's just what CRA-covered
> institutions were doing. Meanwhile, property
> values in CRA neighborhoods were increasing as was
> outside investment in neighborhood infrastructure.
> It turned out that CRA was both good policy and
> good business.
>
> The GSE's had meanwhile begun experimenting with
> sample portfolios from this new subprime sector
> that had been opened up. They assumed that as
> subprime markets grew and matured, they would come
> to play the same sort of role there that they
> already played in prime markets. Unfortunately,
> things would not turn out that way, as Wall Street
> was able to head the good guys off at the pass.
> In the late 1990's meanwhile, the Russian and
> Asian financial crises wiped out several key
> players among the finance companies, creating a
> credit vacuum in LMI communities that CRA
> institutions were not yet ready to fill. Into the
> breach jumped an ambitious but unfortunately
> unscrupulous new breed of private sector brokers
> with names like Countrywide, Ameriquest, and New
> Century Financial. Their roles in greasing the
> skids for the coming crisis have already been
> outlined above, but suffice it to say that this
> was where they got their big break and they were
> happy to have the new business.
>
> Meanwhile, like every administration since FDR,
> Clinton's had a goal of expanding home ownership.
> He gave it a little extra emphasis perhaps in that
> Reagan and Bush-41 had just become the only two
> Presidents to FAIL in this objective. CRA was one
> part of it. Extending the reach of modern
> financial tools and techniques into other
> traditionally underserved areas was another. So
> was encouragement to the construction and finance
> industries generally to find new, better, and more
> flexible ways of building homes and then putting
> people in them on a sustainable basis. The
> National Home Ownership Strategy put together in
> 1995 by public, private, academic, and non-profit
> experts from around the country listed 100
> practical steps to ease and broaden paths to home
> ownership, and the sorry ownership trends of the
> 1980's were indeed turned around.
>
> The 1990's also saw two bits of Republican
> wet-dream legislation passed and signed by
> Clinton. Gramm-Leach-Bliley repealed two parts of
> the 1930's Glass-Steagall Act to allow commercial
> banks, brokerages, and insurance companies to
> operate under the same roof and have the same
> directors. Banks and brokers had been operating
> that way in spite of the law since the mid-1980's.
> Travelers and CitiCorp had merged in direct
> violation of existing law a year before the new
> one was passed. The Fed promptly gave them an
> exemption for the deal. GLB essentially brought
> the law up to date with what had already become
> established practice.
>
> Then there was the Commodity Futures Modernization
> Act. It contained the infamous "Enron loophole"
> that allowed certain types of futures contracts to
> be traded on exchanges in the United states for
> the first time. There were no such exchanges in
> the US at that time, and by the time those
> existed, Enron no longer did. Futures trading
> simply went on as usual on European and other
> exchanges in the meantime. CFMA also promised
> that Congress would take no action to regulate OTC
> derivatives markets as CFTC Chair Brooksley Born
> had thought to propose in 1998, thereby creating
> quite a kerfuffle. But this promise simply
> extended the status quo, as OTC derivatives had
> traded on "dark markets" ever since they had been
> exempted from regulation in the waning days of the
> Bush-41 administration by Brooksley Born's
> predecessor, Wendy Gramm, the wife of Phil Gramm,
> the author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, who had herself
> gone on to sit on the board of Enron. It's all so
> incestuous!
>
> As for Barney Frank, he was instrumental in the
> 1994 creation within the Fed of powers to regulate
> subprime credit markets that Alan Greenspan would
> later refuse to use. Frank stood four-square
> behind Clinton's calls for modernized access to
> home ownership, and also worked to expand the
> types of housing that the GSE's could purchase
> notes on. He worked particularly hard on the
> matter of modular housing as that technology began
> to come online. In stark contrast to what would
> emerge on the right, Barney Frank was concerned
> with both the mission and the safety of the GSE's,
>
>
> So there are some tidbits about yet another decade
> that a lot of you simply let fly by without taking
> any notice. So many episodes of Friends,
> Seinfeld, ER, and The Simpsons to keep up with.
> How did those turn out for you?

desperate times call for.... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You'd have to be pretty desperate to pay him a single
> cent for his writing (or lack thereof) skills.

Actually -- and as I'm sure you fear/suspect -- my writing and speaking skills were significant parts of my professional CV. Ideas are one thing, but an ability to communicate in a warm, clear, and connected manner that draws people in and helps them to grasp the concepts behind what you are explaining can prove to be more valuable still. But as I said, I don't need the money.

cartoon education Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Much better to get your schooling in economics
> from a cartoonist who graduated art school!

I imagine you struggled with Sesame Street as well.

tl;dr.. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[nothing, actually]

You learn nothing from what you don't read. Nothing here is all that long. Unless you have the attention span of a fruit fly.
.
Attachments:

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> desperate times call for.... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You'd have to be pretty desperate to pay him a
> single
> > cent for his writing (or lack thereof) skills.
>
> Actually -- and as I'm sure you fear/suspect -- my
> writing and speaking skills were significant parts
> of my professional CV. Ideas are one thing, but
> an ability to communicate in a warm, clear, and
> connected manner that draws people in and helps
> them to grasp the concepts behind what you are
> explaining can prove to be more valuable still.
> But as I said, I don't need the money.

Bwwwawahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>But I do find it amusingly bizarre that some people believe there are actual positions to be had as preacher to places like FFXU.

LOL you walked right into that old friend. Do you think this is the New York or LA Times or the Post? There are very few serious people on this site! The only person you have influenced here is ME. And I will say.

I will admit, you do have a great deal of knowledge, you had to be in the "business" to know what you do, But as said you will put the Best Spin you can on the facts to make Democrats look good and ALL Republicans look Bad. Not the truth at all. Theres plenty of blame on both sides . I will give it to you however Bush was the President and it happened on his watch so yes he can get a lot of the blame for this issue which of course is huge. And I will say theres No Defense for the people in the Post story that started this thread, they are responsible for their own bad real estate decisions and I stand by my statement that they were Real Estate investors not mere "home owners". getting eating alive by the banks. Real Estate investment is ruthless and has always been so. It takes good legal advice and the advice of many other professionals to make sound deciosions when dealing with Real Estate as a investment. Plus some cash dedicated to make mortgage payments dont pay up. Dont lie tell us how much cash a person should have to rent out a property how many months mortgage payment they should have in case of a renter not paying them. Nothing at all like the people in the story?

And rememember how you gave the poster hell because of the donkey pics, the same goes with the cockroach or fly pic you just posted. Childish and You know it. I do the same cant help it, Oh Well.

Now relax and enjoy the large warm house and tommorow a fresh pot of Kona awaits.

In November 2016 I will be voting for The Republican candidate for President of Course.

Then Why Are You Here? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I will admit, you do have a great deal of
> knowledge,


The only thing that he has are large piles of bullshit.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cartoon education Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Much better to get your schooling in economics
> > from a cartoonist who graduated art school!
>
> I imagine you struggled with Sesame Street as
> well.


No siree, but it appears you still get your information from cartoonists with art school degrees.

You forgot the part where the GSE's loaded up their portfolios with crap trying to keep their numbers up. And how they facilitated the larger market for crap in the process.

>more valuable still

Got You, I could not help it.

>. Plus some cash dedicated to make mortgage payments dont pay up.

What? How about this : Plus some cash dedicated to make mortgage payments if renters dont pay up.

Got Myself Too Fair and Square , The Good Republican Way.

Now back to the thread why are these people underwater, it was not because of Bush or anyone else, but pure and simple bad investment decisions. All of them. Period. Sleep well , Kona Tomorrow!

FANNIE MAE CHAIRMAN COMMITS COMPANY TO 'TRANSFORMING THE HOUSING FINANCE SYSTEM'; VOWS COMPANY WILL PROVIDE $1 TRILLION IN TARGETED LENDING

WASHINGTON, March 15 [1994] /PRNewswire/ -- The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) (NYSE: FNM) today said that between now and the end of the decade, it will commit $1 trillion to help finance over 10 million homes for families and communities most in need.

The company's chairman and chief executive officer, James A. Johnson, also committed Fannie Mae to "transforming the nation's housing finance system to make it accessible to everyone, free of arbitrary barriers, and dedicated to the elimination of lending discrimination."

The $1 trillion is the largest commitment ever made by any entity, public or private, to provide housing finance to those who need it most, Johnson said. It will serve families with incomes at or below the median for their communities, minorities, new immigrants, residents of central cities and other underserved areas, and people who have special housing needs.

Johnson said that while the American dream of owning a home is more powerful today than ever before, millions of Americans are denied the opportunity for homeownership because of racial discrimination; a lack of information and home buyer counseling; and arbitrary barriers in the housing finance system.

Through Fannie Mae's commitment to transforming the nation's housing finance system, the company will: reach out to every renter in America to provide the information they need to buy a home; break down arbitrary barriers to getting a mortgage; and do everything in its power to make the elimination of lending discrimination the number one priority of the housing finance system.

Fannie Mae's commitment, called "Showing America A New Way Home," consists of 11 initiatives. They are:

-- "Opening Doors for Every American," a national consumer outreach campaign that will use multilingual television, radio, and print advertising; direct mail; and other techniques to reach out to every renter in America to provide the information they need to buy a home. "We believe that through this effort, more than 5 million families will respond to Fannie Mae's outreach as their first step to owning a home," Johnson said.

-- A commitment that Fannie Mae will seek to make the elimination of discrimination the number one priority of every participant in the mortgage finance system. "Fannie Mae has a moral obligation to help lead this fight, and we support the renewed vigor with which the federal government is clarifying and enforcing fair housing laws," Johnson said. He noted that the company is working with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to determine how Fannie Mae can aid the government's efforts.

Johnson said that Fannie Mae will provide its lenders with the products and services they need to reach underserved families and communities and will take specific steps to increase the diversity of the mortgage industry and the participation of minority- and women-owned lenders in the housing finance system.

-- A "New Americans" campaign targeted to the fastest growing segment of the population -- the eight million immigrants who will come to the U.S. during the 1990s. Fannie Mae will provide these new Americans with home-buying information, often in their native language, and will utilize multilingual media to reach them.

-- A "HomePath Initiative," which has as its goal the elimination of any final "no" in the mortgage application process. Through a series of second and third reviews of rejected mortgage applications, coupled with high quality home buyer counseling offered by local counseling agencies and Fannie Mae, every American who wants to get a mortgage will have their loan approved, or be put on a path that can lead to approval.

-- A commitment to ensure that Fannie Mae's underwriting guidelines for lenders are clear, flexible, and applied equally to all loan applicants. Among the steps Fannie Mae will take to fulfill this commitment are the development of the most comprehensive training program for mortgage underwriters in the country, and the establishment of hotlines that lenders can call for instant guidance on underwriting policies.

-- The opening of 25 "Fannie Mae Partnership Offices" throughout the country that will form long-term partnerships with cities, rural areas, and other underserved communities.

-- $5 billion in new underwriting experiments to probe and test new approaches aimed at making the mortgage finance system more accessible to minorities, low- and moderate- income families, central city and rural residents, and people with special housing needs.

-- An "Innovations for Change" initiative, which represents the most significant product development effort ever undertaken in the history of housing finance. This initiative will develop at least ten new financing tools to serve the full range of housing needs. The initial focus will be on programs for the elderly, housing renovation, rural housing, housing for Native Americans, and housing to meet the special needs of persons with developmental disabilities or AIDS.

-- A $50 billion commitment to multifamily housing finance, to create more affordable rental housing opportunities. This commitment is double the amount of multifamily finance Fannie Mae has provided over the past seven years.

-- An initiative to develop and make available new technologies that will reduce the major barriers to homeownership faced by many families as a result of the cost, complexity, paperwork, and time involved in obtaining mortgage credit. Fannie Mae's goals include the use of technology to simplify the mortgage application process and reduce the fees charged to borrowers by $1,000, Johnson said.

-- A major increase in the size of the Fannie Mae Foundation. According to Johnson, the Fannie Mae Foundation will spend more than $30 million over the next three years to support housing and community development, making it the most significant source of corporate philanthropic funds for nonprofit housing activities in the country.

Johnson said the $1 trillion in targeted housing finance will result in homes for approximately 10 million families. It will represent well over half of the business Fannie Mae will do over the remainder of this decade.

Fannie Mae is a congressionally chartered, shareholder owned company, and is the nation's largest source of home mortgage funds.


Underwriting Flexibilities

The corporation is committed to ensuring that its underwriting guidelines are clear and flexible, and are applied equally to everyone. Substantial evidence, including findings in a study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, exists to show that while there is flexibility in Fannie Mae's guidelines, it is applied to white mortgage applicants more often than to minority applicants. A recent report of the federal Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending, made up of top officials of the ten federal agencies responsible for implementing and enforcing fair lending laws, urges lenders to be aware of "the provisions of the secondary market guidelines that provide various alternative and flexible means by which applicants may demonstrate their ability and willingness to repay their loans."

-0- 3/15/94
/CONTACT: David Jeffers, 202-752-5962, or Charlotte Sterling, 202-752-7928, both of Fannie Mae/
(FNM)

Then Why Are You Here? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL you walked right into that old friend. Do you
> think this is the New York or LA Times or the
> Post?

Ask yourself why the missionary goes to preach amongst the heathen.

> There are very few serious people on this site!
> The only person you have influenced here is ME.

You flatter yourself. Everyone who reads them is influenced by my words. Some try to fight the effects, but all are subject to them.

> I will admit, you do have a great deal of
> knowledge, you had to be in the "business" to know
> what you do, But as said you will put the Best
> Spin you can on the facts to make Democrats look
> good and ALL Republicans look Bad.

There is little left for me to do in making Republicans look bad. They have a simply dismal record stretching back over a long, long period of time. Merely recounting the actual and seemingly innocent history is all that's needed. Do you recall how (in 1986) Ronald Reagan eliminated the tax deduction for all personal interest except that on debt backed by home equity? Everybody and his uncle had to go out and get a home equity line and use it to pay for everything. Who was the grandfather of using home equity as an ATM? Why, it was Ronald Reagan.

> Not the truth at all. Theres plenty of blame on both sides.

No, the blame is quite lopsided here. The whole thing grew up between 2002 and 2006 and it was the actions of cowboy capitalists and the inaction of inane Republican regulators that brought the whole thing about. That's what it all boils down to, no matter how hard the Mises Institute propagandists try to pretend that Jimmy Carter did it.

> Real Estate investment is ruthless and has always
> been so. It takes good legal advice and the advice
> of many other professionals to make sound deciosions
> when dealing with Real Estate as a investment.

Simply buying what instantly becomes an owner-occupied dwelling does have an investment component to it, but it should not plunge one into the shark tank. You should not have to wrestle and wrangle with Donald Trump or Angelo Mozilo in order to pull off simple home ownership in America. If that sort of risk has now been pushed down onto the common man trying to buy a home for his family, it's an illustration of how very much too far this "ownership society" nonsense has gone. And we all know whose baby that is!

> Dont lie tell us how much cash a person should
> have to rent out a property how many months
> mortgage payment they should have in case of a
> renter not paying them. Nothing at all like the
> people in the story?

Don't lie. You know very well that the answer depends on whether the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression is about to happen or not. As was noted long ago, as West African immigrants, these were unsophisticated actors still trying to learn the ways of their new land. They unfortunately received and acted on what turned out to be bad advice. This does not make them the moral basket cases that some try to paint them as. They were educated, honest, hard-working people hoping to get ahead. They instead were swallowed up, as a world they were not even aware of began to unravel and collapse on top of them. The same thing happened to millions of others all over the country.

> And rememember how you gave the poster hell
> because of the donkey pics, the same goes with the
> cockroach or fly pic you just posted. Childish and
> You know it. I do the same cant help it, Oh Well.

There isn't any shot at all that could be considered too cheap in responding to someone whose comment was "too long; didn't read". Besides, it was a drosophila -- a fruit fly.

> Now relax and enjoy the large warm house and
> tommorow a fresh pot of Kona awaits.

Yes, the Kona is here as always. As is a reheated bowl of last-night's homemade spicy pork and wonton soup. This is a recipe I've been working on for some years, and it really has gotten good! Really gets your taste buds going!

> In November 2016 I will be voting for The
> Republican candidate for President of Course.

You don't even know the candidates yet. Way to keep an open mind.

cartoon education Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No siree, but it appears you still get your
> information from cartoonists with art school
> degrees.

No, from some of the most respected and selective universities in the country and about four decades of professional experience, I have gathered enough information to be able to tell you that the cartoon you so struggle with does indeed present a fair summary and overview of the events that led to the credit crisis. There is that pesky confusion between subprime lending and abuse of subprime credit markets, but apart from that, the producers have done a pretty good job in bringing some fairly complex issues down to your level.

American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You forgot the part where the GSE's loaded up
> their portfolios with crap trying to keep their
> numbers up.

Not at all, but that part didn't occur until Daniel Mudd and late 2006, by which time the die of economic destruction had already been cast. But to recap anyway, the GSE's had been constrained in their operations since Bushie's regulators slapped them with a need to restate income. Wall Street did indeed capitalize on that slowdown by seizing (and corrupting) what had been sizable chunks of GSE territory. Fannie Mae's share of primary mortgage market purchases had fallen below 25%. Mudd had shareholders clamoring for profits and earnings more like those that Wall Street was reporting. He had a Republican Congress yelling at him to do more for minority housing. And he needed to bring Fannie Mae back into the game. So he bought a large chunk of high-income notes from Wall street in an attempt to kill three birds with one stone. It didn't work, as virtually all of that last-minute paper went on to fail miserably.

> And how they facilitated the larger
> market for crap in the process.

Not at all. The "larger market for crap" was deliberately built to be exactly that by Wall Street profiteers anxious to create and maintain a bypass around the standards of the GSE's in order to generate the volumes of paper that would be needed to meet (and profusely profit from) the burgeoning demand of institutional investors in secondary mortgage markets. You seem to be pretty much completely in the dark here.

I sold a few months before the bubble burst and rented an apartment as well as a storage locker for a year then I bought a nicer home in the same neighborhood for 187,000 less than what I sold my original house for. I hate George Bush like most good Americans but I cannot complain about how things worked out for me. Now my fico is 811 and I have 400 grand in savings.
I wish I could take credit for my real estate success but I cant. I sold my house because I lost my job but ended up getting a better job a couple months later. I just got lucky.

Fundamentally Transforming... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FANNIE MAE CHAIRMAN COMMITS COMPANY TO
> 'TRANSFORMING THE HOUSING FINANCE SYSTEM'; VOWS
> COMPANY WILL PROVIDE $1 TRILLION IN TARGETED
> LENDING

Was there some point to that? This is Fannie Mae's part in the general initiative of expanding home ownership after those rather shocking and depressing declines under both Reagan and Bush-41. Keep in mind that Fannie Mae doesn't make any loans itself -- it buys up qualified loans made by others then resells them in packages to other investors. This is the process by which primary market lenders are able to recapitalize and continue to operate. Note also that what you copied and pasted was a press release announcing a six-year target. It's all words. No money had moved anywhere yet, nor was there anything to assure that it would. And with what was at that time about a 70% primary market share, Fannie Mae's books were already full of numbers in the trillions, so don't let the simple number of zeros throw you. Meanwhile, these LMI targets pre-dated Clinton, and early on, he did not push them beyond the 30% he had inherited. There were increases to 40% in 1995 and to 42% 1996. Then in 2000, he was able to move the LMI target to 50%, not as some sort of spur to the GSE's, but because that's the sort of numbers they had achieved the year before anyway.

happy hoe moaner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish I could take credit for my real estate
> success but I cant. I sold my house because I lost
> my job but ended up getting a better job a couple
> months later. I just got lucky.

Sometimes one is rewarded with many pachinko balls. Sometimes with very few.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cartoon education Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No siree, but it appears you still get your
> > information from cartoonists with art school
> > degrees.
>
> No, from some of the most respected and selective
> universities in the country and about four decades
> of professional experience, I have gathered enough
> information to be able to tell you that the
> cartoon you so struggle with does indeed present a
> fair summary and overview of the events that led
> to the credit crisis.

If you'd have half of what you claimed, you'd see the obvious flaws in the cartoon, but you don't, so you trust a cartoon from an art school graduate.

> There is that pesky
> confusion between subprime lending and abuse of
> subprime credit markets, but apart from that, the
> producers have done a pretty good job in bringing
> some fairly complex issues down to your level.

See above and then some. I don't really fault you for your lack of insight. You're only regurgitating what you've been told to believe after all.

>If that sort of risk has now been pushed down onto the common man trying to buy a home for his family,

The people already had a home , that they made over 140 k on, so they speculated which is what Real Estate investors do. They had no problem buying their first home.

I can't say they lost their hat and ass as they have been able to stay in the large home since 2008 without making a payment, and as others have pointed out should have saved plenty living in a house that has been "Paid For" No mortgage payment that is.


> In November 2016 I will be voting for The
> Republican candidate for President of Course.

You don't even know the candidates yet. Way to keep an open mind.

What Hillery, Warren ? Who has a "Mind" that would vote for either?

Unless you enjoy welfare benefits and free rides and special treatment or are stinking rich and have a guilt complex because of your wealth and want to act like your some kind of great savior. Average real working people "the common man" have to pay for everything they have got.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Dream Commitment Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You forgot the part where the GSE's loaded up
> > their portfolios with crap trying to keep their
> > numbers up.
>
> Not at all, but that part didn't occur until
> Daniel Mudd and late 2006, by which time the die
> of economic destruction had already been cast.
> But to recap anyway, the GSE's had been
> constrained in their operations since Bushie's
> regulators slapped them with a need to restate
> income. Wall Street did indeed capitalize on that
> slowdown by seizing (and corrupting) what had been
> sizable chunks of GSE territory. Fannie Mae's
> share of primary mortgage market purchases had
> fallen below 25%. Mudd had shareholders clamoring
> for profits and earnings more like those that Wall
> Street was reporting. He had a Republican
> Congress yelling at him to do more for minority
> housing. And he needed to bring Fannie Mae back
> into the game. So he bought a large chunk of
> high-income notes from Wall street in an attempt
> to kill three birds with one stone. It didn't
> work, as virtually all of that last-minute paper
> went on to fail miserably.
>


It was a long process starting in the 90s with the push to increase home ownership in various forms continuing all the way through to the time things went tits up. Congress, HUD, and other outside advocates pushing lower-end and minority ownership, lowering standards and down payment requirements and other relaxed qualification. Directed partnering with private lenders to generate more mortgages (which necessarily expanded most at the lower end). The GSEs making an artificial market and serving as a money pump for it. The "American Dream Commitment" and similar initiatives being the early form and a reflection of the overall effort to greatly increase home ownership, minority and otherwise, along with an associated increase in levels of risk as the pool was expanded and the quality of borrowers necessarily decreased. All of which btw was looked upon by advocates as working just great... many pointing to the success and pushing for further expansion... right up until the point that it didn't.

That push combined with lowered rates drove the desired increase in the pool of buyers as was the objective. Greater demand by those buyers drove prices. The perception of ever-increasing prices drove the bubble, which like any other bubble, then resulted in large increases in (artificial) valuations. Everything based on those valuations was smoke. To the extent that it was leveraged just made it worse. That included increasingly greater portions of the GSE's portfolios as time went on. Particularly so in the later years as they bought, repackaged, and sold more crap in an effort to keep their numbers up. (No, it didn't start in 2006. It just spiked up.)

It also greatly fueled refinancings (including various "creative' approaches) locking borrowers into those terms and inflated artificial valuations and pulling real equity out of the market at the same time. Which later would become the larger problem as values fell back to more realistic levels.

> > And how they facilitated the larger
> > market for crap in the process.
>
> Not at all. The "larger market for crap" was
> deliberately built to be exactly that by Wall
> Street profiteers anxious to create and maintain a
> bypass around the standards of the GSE's in order
> to generate the volumes of paper that would be
> needed to meet (and profusely profit from) the
> burgeoning demand of institutional investors in
> secondary mortgage markets. You seem to be pretty
> much completely in the dark here.

Absolutely so. The private guys actually were late to the party. The GSE's had been playing the same game with those same buyers at a larger level for a long time prior at the (now expanded) lower end of the "good" market. While the sub-prime crap and related derivatives may have acted as the trigger for the crash and had more direct, immediate effect as far as the banks go, the larger charge already was in place just waiting for something to set it off. The games played on the private side weren't what made the market fall apart. Rather, the market beginning to fail caused the shakiest part to begin to crumble, then taking the rest of the structure down along with it, including that held by the GSEs.

By the time that the sketchy sub-prime stuff hit the market, the GSEs had been doing the exact same thing for years. They were not in any realistic way significantly constrained. They added increasing amounts of crap every year starting long before the crash in an effort to keep their numbers up. They'd just redefined their own crap as acceptable crap. Even when they took just the (relatively) higher tranches of given packaged securities they facilitated the market for the rest of that package and legitimized the market for such things overall. They also packaged their own crap. They already were experiencing large losses and higher defaults long before the crash. It was apparent much earlier on that the market and more qualified buyers were saturated. But recognizing and accepting that doesn't help generate their numbers.

cartoon education Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you'd have half of what you claimed, you'd see
> the obvious flaws in the cartoon, but you don't,
> so you trust a cartoon from an art school
> graduate.

I notice you didn't point to any of these "obvious flaws". Cat got your tongue over there, junior?

> See above and then some. I don't really fault you
> for your lack of insight. You're only regurgitating
> what you've been told to believe after all.

I've got years at some of the most respected and selective universities in the country and about four decades of professional experience. What have you got again? Oh, that's right...ENVY and BUTTHURT. Nice.

Is this another Vienna vs Falls Church thread?

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I've got years at some of the most respected and
> selective universities in the country and about
> four decades of professional experience.

And yet, with all that, you cement your case with a cartoon from an art school graduate with zippy credentials in economics. Fool.

You should have given up when your idiocy surrounding Jim Jeffords was exposed.

American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was a long process starting in the 90s with the
> push to increase home ownership in various forms...

That started in the 1930's.

> continuing all the way through to the time things
> went tits up. Congress, HUD, and other outside
> advocates pushing lower-end and minority
> ownership, lowering standards and down payment
> requirements and other relaxed qualification.

The GSE's had standards as to what loans they would purchase. Wall Street did not. Brokers would log into Desktop Underwriter and try to get a sale to Fannie Mae. Same answer kept coning back -- no, no,no, no. Time to take this paper off to Wall street instead.

CRA portfolios were meanwhile loans to these very "lower-end and minority" borrowers you so love to despise and disparage. CRA portfolios performed better than industry averages. There are ways to meet the credit needs of non-traditional communities while preserving safety and soundness of operations.

But as their own supplies of borrowers began to dry up, Wall Street et al. disrespected every safety and soundness practice in the book. Their underwriting standards simply flew out the window. They kept pushing paper, collecting their bonuses, and dumping their poison off into the secondary markets until they finally choked on it.

> It also greatly fueled refinancings (including
> various "creative' approaches) locking borrowers
> into those terms and inflated artificial
> valuations and pulling real equity out of the
> market at the same time. Which later would become
> the larger problem as values fell back to more
> realistic levels.

What? It seems you don't understand refinancing either. The bad guys certainly did try to lure and tease prime-qualified borrowers into tricked out sub-prime level refi's, but refinancing itself is a perfectly ordinary and straight-forward process. In the textbook example, a homeowner effectively sells his home to himself while earning a handsome improvement in cash-flow in the process. If you had a mortgage already in 2000 and haven't refinanced it at least twice since, you've really missed the boat.

> Absolutely so. The private guys actually were
> late to the party. The GSE's had been playing the
> same game with those same buyers at a larger level
> for a long time prior at the (now expanded) lower
> end of the "good" market.

LOL! That's pure bullshit. Time to put a paper bag over your head.

> The games played on the private side weren't what
> made the market fall apart.

You're aren't even in the right market, moron. You still think there was some sort of housing market bubble that had to pop, when in truth the only problem was that credit needed to finance housing (and everything else) was unavailable because credit markets were all gummed up by the levels of bad paper written into them by the greedy little bastards on Wall Street. It's as simple as that. It was a credit market problem, not a housing market problem.

> By the time that the sketchy sub-prime stuff hit
> the market, the GSEs had been doing the exact same
> thing for years.

Again, the GSE's played a very tiny role, and it came very late in the game. If the private-label shops had never gotten into the act and the GSE's had gone on to set the standards for subprime as they do for prime, none of this would have happened. Keep in mind that the GSE's themselves were pulled back into conservatorship not to keep the perps from doing further damage, but to keep them from becoming worse and worse victims of the cascading mess that Wall Street had created.

Your understanding of all this is at the level of terrible. You don't know what actually did happen while believing that all sorts of imaginary nonsense things happened instead. Go off for a few years and read some responsible history of the times. I'm sure it will take that long at least to drive the piffle from your head. There is a lot available from the Fed and from better academic and professional journals.

cartoon education Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yet, with all that, you cement your case with
> a cartoon from an art school graduate with zippy
> credentials in economics. Fool.

It's an eleven-minute overview of the crisis that even stupid shits can typically follow along with. You apparently are beneath that level however.

> You should have given up when your idiocy
> surrounding Jim Jeffords was exposed.

Minor memory glitch admitted to. Your collective fuckups are far, far more serious and still completely unrecognized.

If you rent a house out. How many months of mortgage payments you should have in cash, plus how much money for unseen repairs.

It seems the peoples troubles began with the fact the renters of their town house did not pay them rent and it can take how many months to evict. 6 months I bet.

Now Tell Us . We are worthy of a Freebie!

Now Quit Sparring defending Democats and damming the GOP theres blame a plenty to go round.

Personally Im not refinanceing shit. Im 60 and I'm not adding a dime to my home payoff to gain 85 bucks a month on a 4.5 % loan with 138K left on it. It was a 148 K conventional loan with 20% + down and I only bought 4 years ago. We all had a good laugh when they told me the final payment would be in 2041. I bought the house after I retired at age 56 and no more driveing to work. So I'm smelling The "Kona" called Chock Full Of Nuts in the morning too. Looking at the beautiful grounds out thru the expansive windows.

And Yes feeding my many feathered and furry friends on my deck rails as they need it in the cold and don't forget the fresh water as thats hard for them to find when it freezes.
Attachments:

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Dream Commitment Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It was a long process starting in the 90s with
> the
> > push to increase home ownership in various
> forms...
>
> That started in the 1930's.


Not nearly like it did after the GSEs with their bankroll and incentives to drive the market. That's the whole point why they exist. And why they should be gone.

>
> > continuing all the way through to the time
> things
> > went tits up. Congress, HUD, and other outside
> > advocates pushing lower-end and minority
> > ownership, lowering standards and down payment
> > requirements and other relaxed qualification.
>
> The GSE's had standards as to what loans they
> would purchase. Wall Street did not. Brokers
> would log into Desktop Underwriter and try
> to get a sale to Fannie Mae. Same answer kept
> coning back -- no, no,no, no. Time to take this
> paper off to Wall street instead.


Standards which were reduced over time and which didn't stop them (actually encouraged) from buying tons of crap, especially on the securities side. About $1.5 trillion worth.

With the blessing and backing of HUD. History is a funny thing... It doesn't go away. Seemed like a great plan back in 2002:

http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/subprime.pdf

But that wasn't the larger part of the problem at a systemic level. It was the marginal buyers just above that, the cashed-out refinancers, and other borrowers who were only "prime" in name under relaxed standards and qualification criteria along with vehicles which promoted more risk taking on the part of buyers.


> CRA portfolios were meanwhile loans to these very
> "lower-end and minority" borrowers you so love to
> despise and disparage. CRA portfolios performed
> better than industry averages. There are ways to
> meet the credit needs of non-traditional
> communities while preserving safety and soundness
> of operations.
>

I didn't disparage anyone. They were what they were - more risky borrowers by definition. But I don't even blame the CRA-specific loans much. They played a some minor part but the much larger effects were from relaxed standards up from that. Which the GSEs greatly helped to grow.


> But as their own supplies of borrowers began to
> dry up, Wall Street et al. disrespected every
> safety and soundness practice in the book. Their
> underwriting standards simply flew out the window.
> They kept pushing paper, collecting their
> bonuses, and dumping their poison off into the
> secondary markets until they finally choked on
> it.


Yep. And so did the GSEs right along with them. Increasingly so. You referenced their own spike in buying crap yourself. They also packaged their crap right along with everyone else. The lent their significant weight to the market for securitizing crap.

>
> > It also greatly fueled refinancings (including
> > various "creative' approaches) locking
> borrowers
> > into those terms and inflated artificial
> > valuations and pulling real equity out of the
> > market at the same time. Which later would
> become
> > the larger problem as values fell back to more
> > realistic levels.
>
> What? It seems you don't understand refinancing
> either. The bad guys certainly did try to lure
> and tease prime-qualified borrowers into tricked
> out sub-prime level refi's, but refinancing itself
> is a perfectly ordinary and straight-forward
> process. In the textbook example, a homeowner
> effectively sells his home to himself while
> earning a handsome improvement in cash-flow in the
> process. If you had a mortgage already in 2000
> and haven't refinanced it at least twice since,
> you've really missed the boat.


Uh, yeah, I know what refinancing is. You're either operating at 3rd grade level or just playing dumb. If you don't understand the effects of people draining the inflated, artificial equity out of their homes through refinancing at the time, tying themselves into various loan structures which assumed that prices would only increase, rolling other debt into seconds based on inflated values, etc., then you're missing the primary reasons for subsequent huge losses across the market beyond the initial crash.


>
> > Absolutely so. The private guys actually were
> > late to the party. The GSE's had been playing
> the
> > same game with those same buyers at a larger
> level
> > for a long time prior at the (now expanded)
> lower
> > end of the "good" market.
>
> LOL! That's pure bullshit. Time to put a paper
> bag over your head.
>
> > The games played on the private side weren't
> what
> > made the market fall apart.
>
> You're aren't even in the right market, moron.
> You still think there was some sort of housing
> market bubble that had to pop, when in truth the
> only problem was that credit needed to finance
> housing (and everything else) was unavailable
> because credit markets were all gummed up by the
> levels of bad paper written into them by the
> greedy little bastards on Wall Street. It's as
> simple as that. It was a credit market problem,
> not a housing market problem.
>


There was abubble. Very obviously so. As shown by the fall back to earth.

Credit for future lending also obviously was restricted following the crash. But that doesn't answer the massive problems caused by what already was out there. Which were a result of the exact opposite - too loose credit and standards.


> > By the time that the sketchy sub-prime stuff
> hit
> > the market, the GSEs had been doing the exact
> same
> > thing for years.
>
> Again, the GSE's played a very tiny role, and it
> came very late in the game. If the private-label
> shops had never gotten into the act and the GSE's
> had gone on to set the standards for subprime as
> they do for prime, none of this would have
> happened. Keep in mind that the GSE's themselves
> were pulled back into conservatorship not to keep
> the perps from doing further damage, but to keep
> them from becoming worse and worse victims of the
> cascading mess that Wall Street had created.


About a third of the other-than-prime market wasn't a "tiny" role. That's not even counting the marginal stuff which began to fail beyond that. Or the huge number of short-term bonds they'd issued. They were put into conservatorrship because they would have failed spectacularly if Treasury hadn't taken all of their crap off of their hands and hidden it and provided ~$200 billion in immediate capital to remain solvent.

>
> Your understanding of all this is at the level of
> terrible. You don't know what actually did happen
> while believing that all sorts of imaginary
> nonsense things happened instead. Go off for a
> few years and read some responsible history of the
> times. I'm sure it will take that long at least
> to drive the piffle from your head. There is a
> lot available from the Fed and from better
> academic and professional journals.


Your attempt to completely deny any the role of the GSEs is what's ridiculous here.

Tell Us Wizard Tell Us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you rent a house out. How many months of
> mortgage payments you should have in cash...

There is no pat answer to that question. You certainly want the first and last month's rent plus a security deposit. After that, it all depends. Ask yourself or Suze Orman.

> ...plus how much money for unseen repairs.

The rate of unforeseen repairs is first of all not unforeseeable, and second of all no different when renting from when owning. Unless you rent to PCP addicts with a sledgehammer fetish.

> It seems the peoples troubles began with the fact
> the renters of their town house did not pay them
> rent and it can take how many months to evict. 6
> months I bet.

Their problems began when they took the advice of no doubt well-meaning church members to rent instead of sell the Germantown home as they had originally intended to do. Being a novice landlord tied to a rental property forty miles away was a mistake. It would have been questionable even with a management company involved, but a management company would at least have been able to provide better advice than a church. A cultural norm from another time and place didn't serve or help them out very much here.

> Now Quit Sparring defending Democats and damming
> the GOP theres blame a plenty to go round.

It's just history, and while there is no doubt plenty of blame, it is not at all evenly distributed. The distribution is quite lopsided in fact. Bad fiscal policy, bad monetary policy, bad regulatory policy. Only one bunch was in charge at the time.

> Personally Im not refinanceing shit.

That's fine. You have a 4-year old loan at a rate that's only a little above the what would be available today. As a rule of thumb, you need an available rate that's 1% below your existing rate to justify a refinancing, so standing pat is your best plan for the time being. People who had a mortgage already in 2000 have been through multiple points at which available rates were at least 1% below what they were already paying. This is why they refinanced and should have. No greed. Just common sense.

> So I'm smelling The "Kona" called Chock Full Of
> Nuts in the morning too. Looking at the beautiful
> grounds out thru the expansive windows. And Yes
> feeding my many feathered and furry friends on my
> deck rails as they need it in the cold and don't
> forget the fresh water as thats hard for them to
> find when it freezes.

I haven't had any in a while, but Chock Full of Nuts used to be a pretty good pot of coffee. And the birds of course are the same everywhere. They don't do envy and butthurt as much as some of our human friends do. We meanwhile have natural running water along the property, so the birds and so forth have plenty of access there unless it gets down into the teens or below and stays there for an extended period.

Dude are you still defending these idiots who didn't read their loan disclosure and refuse to pay any mortgage for 6 years?


You can really be sold on anything, you are exceptionally stupid.

Bad loans wouldn't have sold without bad borrowers. These African faggots should have stayed in their townhouse instead of trying to profit in real estate.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not nearly like it did after the GSEs with their
> bankroll and incentives to drive the market.

Fannie Mae began operations in 1938.

> Standards which were reduced over time and which
> didn't stop them (actually encouraged) from buying
> tons of crap, especially on the securities side.
> About $1.5 trillion worth.

Dumb-ass loser. Standards for conforming loans have gone both up and down over the decades, but always within bands that excluded the nonsense crap that Wall Street welcomed in and then sold off until the secondary markets choked on it all. Daniel Mudd's desperation leap in 2006 has already been mentioned. Otherwise, the GSE's were regularly in and out of high-income securities markets as a part of their garden-variety interest-rate hedging operations. But the GSE's did not create that stuff. Wall Street did.

> With the blessing and backing of HUD. History is
> a funny thing... It doesn't go away. Seemed like
> a great plan back in 2002:

Moron, it was and still is a great plan. Like the little cartoon that certain dolts are incapable of comprehending, you are committing the grievous sin of being unable to distinguish between subprime lending and abuse of subprime credit markets. One of those is fine, the other one isn't. Your link of course confirms that subprime had been growing slowly through the 90's and that the GSE's were testing model portfolios in preparation for playing the same sort of role in subprime that they did in prime.

Part of that was development of model subprime credit instruments that would use upfront fees on an otherwise fixed-rate 30-year note to balance out any rated excess in risk. Borrowers could then earn their way out of those fees through consistent performance. As you very probably don't know, prime borrowers can only be rated as a class, but subprime borrowers can be rated individually. This is a plus in that loans can be tailored to the situation of a particular subprime borrower, but it is also a minus in that more intensive (and hence expensive) monitoring of individual borrowers is needed. We'll never know if the GSE's would have figured out how to balance all that out because Wall Street (backed by their unscrupulous broker pals, crooked appraisers, and befuddled bond-raters) simply swept in and became the definers of standard subprime instruments. Their models of course included all sorts of high-cost, high-profit tricks and gimmicks to screw the borrower and any subsequent investor as well. Basically, Wall Street was stripping off all the profit, and then selling off all of the risk. And they did this even past the point where the risk component had become prohibitive. You don't know any of this and of course didn't read the report behind your link. This is because you are just a dumbshit.

> But that wasn't the larger part of the problem at
> a systemic level. It was the marginal buyers just
> above that, the cashed-out refinancers, and other
> borrowers who were only "prime" in name under
> relaxed standards and qualification criteria along
> with vehicles which promoted more risk taking on
> the part of buyers.

Idiot. Learn what refi's are and how they work. Borrowers engage in them because one can A) carry the same debt for a lower monthly payment, or B) carry more debt for the same monthly payment. Your rambling babble-shit here is completely meaningless.

> I didn't disparage anyone.

Right. Let's just say that you were hardly complimentary toward low-income and minority borrowers. And among all these other things, you plainly know nothing useful about CRA loans or portfolios either. Just another low-grade propaganda-reading dumbfuck.

> Yep. And so did the GSEs right along with them.

LOL! The GSE's were not playing that game. It was Wall Street and their crooked pals who were running into supply problems. Their fabulous profits and bonuses were being put at risk. But they didn't take that as a sign to slow down or stop. They just ramped up the hard-sell and went full-speed ahead.

> They also packaged their crap right along with everyone
> else. The lent their significant weight to the market for
> securitizing crap.

It was again Wall Street that HAD all the crap, and hence they who were securitizing it. The crap that Daniel Mudd bought late in 2006? All of it came from Wall Street.

> Uh, yeah, I know what refinancing is. You're
> either operating at 3rd grade level or just
> playing dumb. If you don't understand the effects
> of people draining the inflated, artificial equity
> out of their homes through refinancing at the
> time, tying themselves into various loan
> structures which assumed that prices would only
> increase, rolling other debt into seconds based on
> inflated values, etc., then you're missing the
> primary reasons for subsequent huge losses across
> the market beyond the initial crash.

LOL! Which whacko financial guru wannabe website did you take that mass of nonsense from? Equity exists or doesn't exist depending on the relationship between the balance owed on a home mortgage and the current market value of the home involved. The "market" has no claim to that equity. Just the "homeowner". You are off hiking without a guide through the remote back-country of clueless-land here.

> There was a bubble. Very obviously so. As shown
> by the fall back to earth.

There was not a bubble. Markets go up and markets go down. That is their nature. Between mid-2000 and mid-2003, mortgage interest rates fell sharply -- by about 335 basis points. This lit a fire under home prices exactly as it should have. Long-term interest rates and asset prices are after all inversely related in general. Then between mid-2004 and mid-2006, interest rates rose again, and sure enough, housing markets peaked in the Spring of 2006 and began to level off again, exactly what should have happened.

> Credit for future lending also obviously was
> restricted following the crash.

Here's something else you didn't know: Risk is always over-priced in bad times and under-priced in good times. Get used to it, though you'll likely never have an opportunity to put the lesson to any actual use beyond keeping yourself from looking like an even more complete idiot.

> About a third of the other-than-prime market
> wasn't a "tiny" role.

Jumbos? Commercial real estate? Don't make me laugh. What brought about the credit crisis that in turn morphed into the Great Recession was worse and worse residential mortgage paper being cranked out by the profit-seeking Wall Street cabal and jacked into unsuspecting secondary markets when the issuers themselves knew full well those notes would ultimately fail. Fail, they did, and the rest is history.

> Your attempt to completely deny any the role of
> the GSEs is what's ridiculous here.

I'm not denying that they played ANY role, you delusional dipstick. I'm denying that the GSEs played any more than a tiny role that came late late in the game -- after all the horses were already out of the barn. Do you not remember my saying that earlier? I am also of course pointing out that the actual blame for this mess falls upon a bunch of greedy cowboy capitalists on Wall Street and some super-stupid laissez-faire, free-market minded regulators in Washington, all of them the acolytes of one George W Bush. That's how it all went down, regardless of your stooge-like stammerings.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bad loans wouldn't have sold without bad
> borrowers. These African faggots should have
> stayed in their townhouse instead of trying to
> profit in real estate.

Thanks for supplying the IQ-below-80 goober white-trash point-of-view for us. The God of all Ghanaians hates you sorry ass, by the way.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Dream Commitment Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not nearly like it did after the GSEs with
> their
> > bankroll and incentives to drive the market.
>
> Fannie Mae began operations in 1938.


Yeah? And? They didn't get into the more sketchy stuff in any big way until the late 90s when standards were reduced and they moved into more risky activities.

Actually they had some in the past. We should have learned from Freddie and the earlier S&L deal. As FHA should have learned after it had lowered standards and saw defaults increase greatly.

>
> > Standards which were reduced over time and
> which
> > didn't stop them (actually encouraged) from
> buying
> > tons of crap, especially on the securities side.
>
> > About $1.5 trillion worth.
>
> Dumb-ass loser. Standards for conforming loans
> have gone both up and down over the decades, but
> always within bands that excluded the nonsense
> crap that Wall Street welcomed in and then sold
> off until the secondary markets choked on it all.
> Daniel Mudd's desperation leap in 2006 has already
> been mentioned. Otherwise, the GSE's were
> regularly in and out of high-income securities
> markets as a part of their garden-variety
> interest-rate hedging operations. But the GSE's
> did not create that stuff. Wall Street did.


You're ignoring the greatly increased movement into Alt-A and relaxed standards which happened prior to 2006. It was well on the way by then. That was just a hail Mary in the last few minutes as it was becoming more clear that the game was over. Things were already coming apart long before that.

They may not have created it, but the GSEs bought lots of it and acted as a primary market and driver for it. They directly partnered with the Countrywides, BOA, Washington Mutuals, etc., in a concerted effort to drive more ownership (and business for them). Which necessarily had to come from less qualified borrowers through initiatives such as the "American Dream Commitment."

Mozilo understood how that worked at the time even if you don't:

Quote

NYT
Oct 16, 2005

"While he is sanguine about the stock price, Mr. Mozilo remains volatile about so much else. Particularly irksome are calls by Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, to shrink Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the quasi-government institutions that buy huge numbers of mortgages from financial institutions, notably from Countrywide.

"Fannie and Freddie are a threat to his banks," Mr. Mozilo said of Mr. Greenspan, whose agency regulates big bank holding companies. By buying his mortgages and thus freeing up his capital to solicit even more business, Fannie and Freddie are a big reason Mr. Mozilo has driven Countrywide past the Citigroups and the Wells Fargos to the top of the mortgage heap. "If it wasn't for them," he said of Fannie and Freddie, "Wells knows they'd have us."

You also seem to be forgetting that these same parties were rewarded for making more loans and, at the time, received great praise for their activities. Everyone at Fannie, politicians, institutional investors, and the housing advocates all loved guys like Mozilo while they were generating tons of money for them and "making home ownership more accessible and affordable." Lots of mutual back slapping going on. About the only people questioning Mozilo at the time was AFSCME and that was only over his compensation being too high. Anyone who doubted any of it was stiff-armed aside and written off as not being smart enough to understand the model and/or not seeing the vision. Even when it became more clear that the market was tailing off and loans were becoming a problem you had ridiculous stuff offered up as justification to continue like NAR's nonsense "permanently high plateau" as a worst-case scenario.


>
> > With the blessing and backing of HUD. History
> is
> > a funny thing... It doesn't go away. Seemed
> like
> > a great plan back in 2002:
>
> Moron, it was and still is a great plan. Like the
> little cartoon that certain dolts are incapable of
> comprehending, you are committing the grievous sin
> of being unable to distinguish between subprime
> lending and abuse of subprime credit markets. One
> of those is fine, the other one isn't. Your link
> of course confirms that subprime had been growing
> slowly through the 90's and that the GSE's were
> testing model portfolios in preparation for
> playing the same sort of role in subprime that
> they did in prime.
>
> Part of that was development of model subprime
> credit instruments that would use upfront fees on
> an otherwise fixed-rate 30-year note to balance
> out any rated excess in risk. Borrowers could
> then earn their way out of those fees through
> consistent performance. As you very probably
> don't know, prime borrowers can only be rated as a
> class, but subprime borrowers can be rated
> individually. This is a plus in that loans can be
> tailored to the situation of a particular subprime
> borrower, but it is also a minus in that more
> intensive (and hence expensive) monitoring of
> individual borrowers is needed. We'll never know
> if the GSE's would have figured out how to balance
> all that out because Wall Street (backed by their
> unscrupulous broker pals, crooked appraisers, and
> befuddled bond-raters) simply swept in and became
> the definers of standard subprime instruments.
> Their models of course included all sorts of
> high-cost, high-profit tricks and gimmicks to
> screw the borrower and any subsequent investor as
> well. Basically, Wall Street was stripping off
> all the profit, and then selling off all of the
> risk. And they did this even past the point where
> the risk component had become prohibitive. You
> don't know any of this and of course didn't read
> the report behind your link. This is because you
> are just a dumbshit.


You watch too many cartoons. Which appears to be the level at which you operate.

Look dummy, nobody denies the role of brokers and related parties at the sub-prime end and the effects on credit markets. That's not the question. You can drop that now. Everyone understands that part.

You continuing to harp (no pun intended) about sub-prime abuses doesn't negate the abuses by the GSEs. They'd been doing and continued to do the exact same thing just at an incrementally somewhat less risky step up in the scheme of things. "Testing"???? They weren't testing. They were in with both feet and had near half a trillion dollars worth of shit they were holding. lol Not counting even more marginal shit above and beyond that. Once the market began to break down that "less-risky" segment (along with their own true sub-prime crap) turned into real failures and was where most of the larger losses came from. Most of which still is out there btw, it's just been hidden off of their books and stashed away by Treasury.


>
> > But that wasn't the larger part of the problem
> at
> > a systemic level. It was the marginal buyers
> just
> > above that, the cashed-out refinancers, and
> other
> > borrowers who were only "prime" in name under
> > relaxed standards and qualification criteria
> along
> > with vehicles which promoted more risk taking
> on
> > the part of buyers.
>
> Idiot. Learn what refi's are and how they work.
> Borrowers engage in them because one can A) carry
> the same debt for a lower monthly payment, or B)
> carry more debt for the same monthly payment.
> Your rambling babble-shit here is completely
> meaningless.


None of which is to the point. They also were used in huge numbers to pull equity out of existing loans. And to restructure loans forward into a variety of more risky arrangements in order to get to those lower payments. You neglect to mention the many GSE-acceptable schemes employed to lower that monthly payment and to push that debt out into future years as a way to get to that lower payment. The only thing that mattered to pretty much everyone involved was that the (inflated) appraisal came in OK. I mean you can always just refi and sell for more than you paid, right? And since the market was booming, lots did these things. All of which made these investments much more risky from the standpoint of those holding the paper. Which then had huge effects as the market failed and was the cause for most of the losses and foreclosures beyond the initial point-source crash.

>
> > I didn't disparage anyone.
>
> Right. Let's just say that you were hardly
> complimentary toward low-income and minority
> borrowers. And among all these other things, you
> plainly know nothing useful about CRA loans or
> portfolios either. Just another low-grade
> propaganda-reading dumbfuck.


Ummm, again dumbass, you can't seem to grasp that I'm not disputing that the sub-prime abuses were the proximate cause of the crash and related escalating effects on credit markets. Nor am I blaming, beyond at a very minor level CRA-specific lending for much of that. That's the problem with ideologues like you. You can't get past your own propaganda to even understand anything beyond the approved talking points.

In fact, as anyone can see by looking at where the larger losses happened with respect to the housing market, it was not in CRA-specific sub-prime loans. It was in the GSE's playground where relaxed standards had let borrowers up from that level greatly over-extend themselves. The massive numbers of failures of loans in FL, AZ, CA, NV, etc., weren't CRA-borrowers.


>
> > Yep. And so did the GSEs right along with them.
>
>
> LOL! The GSE's were not playing that game. It was
> Wall Street and their crooked pals who were
> running into supply problems. Their fabulous
> profits and bonuses were being put at risk. But
> they didn't take that as a sign to slow down or
> stop. They just ramped up the hard-sell and went
> full-speed ahead.
>
> > They also packaged their crap right along with
> everyone
> > else. The lent their significant weight to the
> market for
> > securitizing crap.
>
> It was again Wall Street that HAD all the crap,
> and hence they who were securitizing it. The crap
> that Daniel Mudd bought late in 2006? All of it
> came from Wall Street.


And who bought huge amounts of it? And who packaged their own crap in the same way? And facilitated the packaging of other crap by buying the upper tranches permitting higher ratings and the lower tranches to be sold along with it? By your own example you concede their significant role in helping to make a market for crap. You can't sell crap unless there's someone willing to buy crap. The GSE's played a primary role in making and legitimizing that market (see Mozilo's commments above).


>
> > Uh, yeah, I know what refinancing is. You're
> > either operating at 3rd grade level or just
> > playing dumb. If you don't understand the
> effects
> > of people draining the inflated, artificial
> equity
> > out of their homes through refinancing at the
> > time, tying themselves into various loan
> > structures which assumed that prices would only
> > increase, rolling other debt into seconds based
> on
> > inflated values, etc., then you're missing the
> > primary reasons for subsequent huge losses
> across
> > the market beyond the initial crash.
>
> LOL! Which whacko financial guru wannabe website
> did you take that mass of nonsense from? Equity
> exists or doesn't exist depending on the
> relationship between the balance owed on a home
> mortgage and the current market value of the home
> involved. The "market" has no claim to that
> equity. Just the "homeowner". You are off hiking
> without a guide through the remote back-country of
> clueless-land here.

There absolutely is. What do you think happens to default rates on those loans when borrowers have pulled all of their equity out (not even considering that they may not have had much to begin with given signature and low down-payment loans) and the house isn't worth what they thought that it would be and/or they can't flip it for what they thought that they'd be able to, can't carry it under the new terms, and/or can't practically refinance again? Just as in the case of the borrowers in the OP.

>
> > There was a bubble. Very obviously so. As
> shown
> > by the fall back to earth.
>
> There was not a bubble. Markets go up and markets
> go down. That is their nature. Between mid-2000
> and mid-2003, mortgage interest rates fell sharply
> -- by about 335 basis points. This lit a fire
> under home prices exactly as it should have.
> Long-term interest rates and asset prices are
> after all inversely related in general. Then
> between mid-2004 and mid-2006, interest rates rose
> again, and sure enough, housing markets peaked in
> the Spring of 2006 and began to level off again,
> exactly what should have happened.


Yes, there obviously was a bubble as anyone with any sense understands. Again, that pesky history thing just won't go away when it's convenient to forget.

The breakdown of home sales and prices was not just a simple, normal adjustment due to higher rates. Although that obviously contributed. The market was saturated. Long ago saturated for higher-quality borrowers and credit was greatly over-extended. Especially in the primary areas for growth and also the most speculative markets: CA, AZ, NV, FL and some others.

But, whether intentional or not, you do now seem to realize that a significant breakdown in the housing market happened PRIOR TO to the sub-prime crash itself. The faltering of the market was what caused the most shaky part to fail, not the other way around as you seem to be trying to suggest. The failure of the real estate market was well underway long before that. The effects on credit markets obviously compounded that going forward.

Quote

Existing home sales drop 4.1% in July, median prices drop in most regions

Updated {b}8/24/2006[/b} 9:00 AM ET
By Noelle Knox, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Existing home sales posted an unexpectedly sharp drop last month to the lowest level since January 2004 and home prices fell in all regions of the country but the South, the National Association of Realtors said Wednesday.
The downward pressure on prices probably will continue through the beginning of next year because the inventory of homes for sale has surged to the highest level in 13 years. There are now 3.86 million homes for sale, a 7.3-month supply.

The weakness in the market is being driven by higher interest rates, low affordability, and speculators who are dumping investment properties back on the market because they couldn't flip them for a profit.

"I was disappointed, it was a lot lower than I anticipated," said David Lereah, NAR's chief economist. "What is clear to me is sellers are more stubborn than I expected them to be. We definitely need a correction in prices in order for buyers to come back into the market."

He said he expects home prices to come down 5% nationally, more in some markets, less in others. And a few cities in Florida and California, where home prices soared to nose-bleed heights, could have "hard landings," he said.

Total existing home sales fell 4.1% from June to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.33 million — a much steeper decline than economists expected.

The median single-family home price, meaning half cost more and half cost less, was $231,200, up 1.5% from July last year, but the median condo price fell for the second month in a row and is now $225,600, down 1%.

What is most worrying, however, is how the real estate markets are suffering in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Massachusetts, and some parts of Pennsylvania and New York. Job losses in those area are driving home sales down and foreclosures up.

The faltering market, lack of buyers at artificially high "market" prices, job losses and foreclosures referenced all were happening BEFORE the sub-prime crash, not as a result of it and the subsequent "Great Recession."

>
> > Credit for future lending also obviously was
> > restricted following the crash.
>
> Here's something else you didn't know: Risk is
> always over-priced in bad times and under-priced
> in good times. Get used to it, though you'll
> likely never have an opportunity to put the lesson
> to any actual use beyond keeping yourself from
> looking like an even more complete idiot.

Another brilliant revelation. Did you learn that by watching cartoons too? lol

>
> > About a third of the other-than-prime market
> > wasn't a "tiny" role.
>
> Jumbos? Commercial real estate? Don't make me
> laugh. What brought about the credit crisis that
> in turn morphed into the Great Recession was worse
> and worse residential mortgage paper being cranked
> out by the profit-seeking Wall Street cabal and
> jacked into unsuspecting secondary markets when
> the issuers themselves knew full well those notes
> would ultimately fail. Fail, they did, and the
> rest is history.
>

Here, let me help you with your own talking points. What you're supposed to be doing is focusing on parsing out CRA-specific loans as not being the source of the problem while ignoring and hoping that nobody notices, as you are, all of the other non-CRA-specific Alt-A crap that they were dealing in themselves. Remember all of that crap that you now admit that they bought up in 2006 (and before)? What do you think that was? Where do you think that it came from? Remember all of the "creative" ways of expanding the number of borrowers? Once again, history remembers:

Quote

Fannie Mae, Battling Losses, to End Alt-A Mortgages (Update4)

By Jody Shenn - August 8, 2008 16:17 EDT

Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Fannie Mae, the largest U.S. mortgage finance company, will stop buying and guaranteeing Alt-A mortgages because of surging losses from home loans to borrowers without proof of their finances.

Fannie won't accept new Alt-A loans after Dec. 31, according to a statement today. The mortgages, which make up about 11 percent of the $3 trillion financed by the Washington-based company, accounted for almost half of second-quarter credit losses, Chief Financial Officer Stephen Swad said today on a conference call.

The debt, generally considered between prime and subprime in terms of expected defaults, has ``driven our credit expenses,'' Chief Executive Officer Daniel Mudd said on the call. ``Alt-A foreclosures have doubled in southern California.''

> > Your attempt to completely deny any the role of
> > the GSEs is what's ridiculous here.
>
> I'm not denying that they played ANY role, you
> delusional dipstick. I'm denying that the GSEs
> played any more than a tiny role that came late
> late in the game -- after all the horses were
> already out of the barn. Do you not remember my
> saying that earlier? I am also of course pointing
> out that the actual blame for this mess falls upon
> a bunch of greedy cowboy capitalists on Wall
> Street and some super-stupid laissez-faire,
> free-market minded regulators in Washington, all
> of them the acolytes of one George W Bush. That's
> how it all went down, regardless of your
> stooge-like stammerings.


You're attempting to deny that they played any significant role. Which they obviously did in helping to artificially pump home ownership (above and beyond just CRA-specific lending). Yes, the horses were out of the barn. And a lot of them had the GSE's brands on them.

You got shut down my friend once again. He's got you good. Now dont blow , we dont need all the bad words here. And for Gods Sake dont talk about sex acts like a typical Democrat and call names. Get up tommorow Smell the Kona and feed the birds. The fact the people in the Post story were Real Estate investors so what lots of people played the game and lost but not me or you, we are the wise ones.

You did give us some good advice to not bother with any refinance deals unless they were 1 point less then the present mortgage.

The fall out was on both sides of politics, many were to blame. And people were the ones taking the lousy loans. Personal Responsibility? Big decisions mean get professional advice. I remember wondering where are the people getting all the money for the sky high loans. My boss shrugged and smiled, Oh people are taking intrest only loans. But I said they will never pay off the house. Oh laugh they dont care everyones making so much money, they stay in the hosue a couple years make a bunch of money as it goes up in value then they will sell and move somewhere else. Lots of people are only here for a few years with their jobs.

Yea some made buckets of money, and some were caught in the wringer at the end and either are under water or have walked in one way or another.

"But we have got to get a house now..Or We will be forever priced out of the market Honey" " "I want a house!"

And the fact the people in the Post were immigrants and did not understand the culture or rules? Tough Shit Lousy SOB story W. Post. And I really liked the part where they considered going back home . Some loyalty to the USA.

American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah? And?

Yeah, and -- everything after 1938 was also after the GSE's. Just another case of your ignorance is showing here.

> You're ignoring the greatly increased movement
> into Alt-A and relaxed standards which happened
> prior to 2006.

LOL! It's exactly what I've been describing. The success of CRA portfolios was a signal of profitability in what had been long-ignored credit markets. Alt-A became THE hot new market segment as the result. Unfortunately, that market would be principally developed by crooks and liars instead of by the GSE's and a bunch of laissez-faires dunces would just sit by and do nothing about it. Hello, credit crisis. Hello, Great Recession.

> It was well on the way by then. That was just a
> hail Mary in the last few minutes as it was becoming
> more clear that the game was over. Things were
> already coming apart long before that.

The GSE's had been hamstrung by Bush. Their primary market share was plummeting. Meanwhile, leverage limits on the Wall Street Big 5 were removed, and Bush was urging thjem top do more, more, more! It was Wall Street that did the poison manufactuting and distribution, not the GSE's.

> They may not have created it, but the GSEs bought
> lots of it and acted as a primary market and
> driver for it.

Here's that pesky graph again, children. See how the red line shows the private-label shops -- those are the ones created by Wall Street to buy and sell pure slop for profit -- driving the GSE's out of secondary market share. That trend continues until the whole charade finally falls apart, and the GSE's and FHA have to move in to pick up the pieces. One colossal fuck-up by those cowboy capitalists on Wall street in tandem with brainless market-worshiping non-regulators in Washington.
.
Attachments:

American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mozilo understood how that worked at the time even
> if you don't:

Stooge. Countrywide was the largest underwriter of both prime and subprime paper. The GSE's were happy to buy all of Angelo's quality paper, but they did infuriate him by refusing to buy his slop. He famously tried to browbeat the GSE's into taking junk off his hands by threatening to take his prime business off to Wall Strreet as well.

> You also seem to be forgetting that these same
> parties were rewarded for making more loans and,
> at the time, received great praise for their
> activities. Everyone at Fannie, politicians,
> institutional investors, and the housing advocates
> all loved guys like Mozilo while they were
> generating tons of money for them and "making home
> ownership more accessible and affordable." Lots
> of mutual back slapping going on.

The GSE's were not happy. Volume was down. Profits were down. Congress was not happy. Shareholders were not happy. All the back-slapping was going on up on Wall Street. Go read "The Giant Pool of Money".

> You watch too many cartoons. Which appears to be
> the level at which you operate.

No, I know too much fact and history. Much, much more than you do.

> Look dummy, nobody denies the role of brokers and
> related parties at the sub-prime end and the
> effects on credit markets. That's not the
> question. You can drop that now. Everyone
> understands that part.

Thank you for at last conceding the point. You could have just surrendered at the get-go, you know.

> You continuing to harp (no pun intended)...

No pun recognized. HARP didn't come along until 2009 -- well after Wall Street and the do-nothing Bushies had driven us all into the ditch.

> ...about sub-prime abuses doesn't negate the abuses
> by the GSEs. They'd been doing and continued to do
> the exact same thing just at an incrementally somewhat
> less risky step up in the scheme of things.

Idiot! Securitiizng the top of the market is a very different thing from knowingly securitizing what should have been below the bottom of the market. Your naked imperceptiveness here is truly impressive.

> "Testing"???? They weren't testing.

More of that history that you know exactly nothing about. A few underwriters had experience with small volumes of subprime credit. The GSE's needed to build on and broaden that knowledge base as they sought to build standards and instruments that would become the bases for subprime credit markets. But Wall Street wasn't waiting around for that. They saw a chance to make huge profits with little to no effort at all, and they took it. And took and took and took.

> They were in with both feet and had near half a trillion
> dollars worth of shit they were holding. lol

What was their prime book? Five trillion? Six trillion? More? Even these inflated end-game numbers are small if you are a GSE.

> Not counting even more marginal shit above and beyond
> that. Once the market began to break down that
> "less-risky" segment (along with their own true
> sub-prime crap) turned into real failures and was
> where most of the larger losses came from.

LOL! This is how a self-reinforcing downward spiral operates. Once things leak out into the broad economy, that initial wave of Wall Street generated crap results in asset market collapses, layoffs, shutdowns, and then a whole second wave of ordinary borrowers who have lost their jobs and incomes and going into default. Then that second wave feeds back and creates a third wave in the same manner. On and on it goes, and ALL OF IT traceable back to the original sin of Wall Street and the Bushies.

> Most of which still is out there btw, it's just been
> hidden off of their books and stashed away by Treasury.

No, an original projected contingent liability of more than $300 billion fell to zero as of the end of FY 2013.

> None of which is to the point.

It's all to the point of your simply not knowing what refi's are and how they operated within the "crisis-building" period. No matter how it was created, equity is not in a loan and it does not belong to the market. It is in an asset and it belongs to the borrower. Take a finance course some day.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Dream Commitment Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mozilo understood how that worked at the time
> even
> > if you don't:
>
> Stooge. Countrywide was the largest underwriter
> of both prime and subprime paper. The GSE's were
> happy to buy all of Angelo's quality paper, but
> they did infuriate him by refusing to buy his
> slop. He famously tried to browbeat the GSE's
> into taking junk off his hands by threatening to
> take his prime business off to Wall Strreet as
> well.

Wrong. They did buy his slop. Lots of Alt-A crap. Lots of sub-prime securities wrapped in various forms.

>
> > You also seem to be forgetting that these same
> > parties were rewarded for making more loans
> and,
> > at the time, received great praise for their
> > activities. Everyone at Fannie, politicians,
> > institutional investors, and the housing
> advocates
> > all loved guys like Mozilo while they were
> > generating tons of money for them and "making
> home
> > ownership more accessible and affordable."
> Lots
> > of mutual back slapping going on.
>
> The GSE's were not happy. Volume was down.
> Profits were down. Congress was not happy.
> Shareholders were not happy. All the
> back-slapping was going on up on Wall Street. Go
> read "The Giant Pool of Money".


They were all happy with the increases in home ownership rates. Right up until it wasn't working and then all of those easy-term, signature loans and similar suddenly became "predatory lending."


>
> > You watch too many cartoons. Which appears to
> be
> > the level at which you operate.
>
> No, I know too much fact and history. Much, much
> more than you do.


Problem is that you only know what you want to be the case. lol


> > Look dummy, nobody denies the role of brokers
> and
> > related parties at the sub-prime end and the
> > effects on credit markets. That's not the
> > question. You can drop that now. Everyone
> > understands that part.
>
> Thank you for at last conceding the point. You
> could have just surrendered at the get-go, you
> know.
>

Uh, if you'd been paying attention to what I said versus just repeating your programmed robotic talking points then you would have noted that I said that from the start. That was never the issue. The issue was whether and to what extent the GSEs also participated and contributed. Which was significantly on both counts.


> > You continuing to harp (no pun intended)...
>
> No pun recognized. HARP didn't come along until
> 2009 -- well after Wall Street and the do-nothing
> Bushies had driven us all into the ditch.
>
> > ...about sub-prime abuses doesn't negate the
> abuses
> > by the GSEs. They'd been doing and continued to
> do
> > the exact same thing just at an incrementally
> somewhat
> > less risky step up in the scheme of things.
>
> Idiot! Securitiizng the top of the market is a
> very different thing from knowingly securitizing
> what should have been below the bottom of the
> market. Your naked imperceptiveness here is truly
> impressive.


Idiot! They did the same thing. They bought the same thing. They facilitated the sale of what shouldn't have been in the market. They were very active players in the game. You act as though the only thing that the GSEs were involved with was 30-year conventional paper. Not even remotely close to the case.


>
> > "Testing"???? They weren't testing.
>
> More of that history that you know exactly nothing
> about. A few underwriters had experience with
> small volumes of subprime credit. The GSE's needed
> to build on and broaden that knowledge base as
> they sought to build standards and instruments
> that would become the bases for subprime credit
> markets. But Wall Street wasn't waiting around
> for that. They saw a chance to make huge profits
> with little to no effort at all, and they took it.
> And took and took and took.


Focus for a moment retard. Really concentrate now. You ready? Sure?

What the private market did doesn't negate what the GSEs did. You continually going back to talk about what unscrupulous private brokers did doesn't address what the GSEs did themselves.

Got it? Good.

>
> > They were in with both feet and had near half a
> trillion
> > dollars worth of shit they were holding. lol
>
> What was their prime book? Five trillion? Six
> trillion? More? Even these inflated end-game
> numbers are small if you are a GSE.
>

What don't you understand about Alt-A alone being 11% of their portfolio and half of their losses in 2008?


> > Not counting even more marginal shit above and
> beyond
> > that. Once the market began to break down that
> > "less-risky" segment (along with their own true
> > sub-prime crap) turned into real failures and
> was
> > where most of the larger losses came from.
>
> LOL! This is how a self-reinforcing downward
> spiral operates. Once things leak out into the
> broad economy, that initial wave of Wall Street
> generated crap results in asset market collapses,
> layoffs, shutdowns, and then a whole second wave
> of ordinary borrowers who have lost their jobs and
> incomes and going into default. Then that second
> wave feeds back and creates a third wave in the
> same manner. On and on it goes, and ALL OF IT
> traceable back to the original sin of Wall Street
> and the Bushies.
>

No. Once again, the market was beginning to fail prior to the sub-prime crash. That is triggered the collapse of sub-prime. Go look at Fannie's default rates by year which start to tick up in 2005 even for conventional loans. Look at when the markets in CA, NV, AZ and FL started to head south (hint: Years before the sub-prime crash). That's where their biggest losses came from.


> > Most of which still is out there btw, it's just
> been
> > hidden off of their books and stashed away by
> Treasury.
>
> No, an original projected contingent liability of
> more than $300 billion fell to zero as of the end
> of FY 2013.

No. That's on a cash-flow basis and doesn't take into account all liabilities assumed.

>
> > None of which is to the point.
>
> It's all to the point of your simply not knowing
> what refi's are and how they operated within the
> "crisis-building" period. No matter how it was
> created, equity is not in a loan and it does not
> belong to the market. It is in an asset and it
> belongs to the borrower. Take a finance course
> some day.

Again not the point. Reduced equity in homes in combination with easier qualification and refi terms which turned out bad given the market all resulted in greater risk on the part of those holding the paper. The refi itself wasn't the point. Take a comprehension course some day.

American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ummm, again dumbass, you can't seem to grasp that
> I'm not disputing that the sub-prime abuses were
> the proximate cause of the crash and related
> escalating effects on credit markets.

You're the one who took forever to get hold of it.

> That's the problem with ideologues like you.

Guess what the problem is with people who don't know what they are talking about. Facts have nothing to do with ideology. They are just facts. You very much need to work on that.

> In fact, as anyone can see by looking at where the
> larger losses happened with respect to the housing
> market, it was not in CRA-specific sub-prime
> loans. It was in the GSE's playground where
> relaxed standards had let borrowers up from that
> level greatly over-extend themselves.

More just plain stupid. CRA subprime loans were but a fraction of all subprime loans -- a fraction that was much less likely to be encumbered by high-cost, high-profit terms of the sort that would cause a loan to FAIL given even a modest rise in interest rates. Who was behind those OTHER subprime loans? It was Wall Street -- the people who had no standards at all and who processed all that happy garbage into the system until the system simply gave out and failed. The subsequent second, third, and fourth waves of default were of course horses of a different color entirely. They were not causes of the original crisis but its effects, no matter your ignorance or your desperate desire to paint them in a different light.

> The massive numbers of failures of loans in FL, AZ, CA, NV,
> etc., weren't CRA-borrowers.

Who wrote those notes? Who securitized them?

> The GSE's played a primary role in making and
> legitimizing that market (see Mozilo's commments
> above).

Worthless assfuck drivel. No other words for it. You are simply too ignorant of actual events to have any sort of clue at all. The GSE's were not driving the market anymore. Should I post the fucking graph again, you hapless stupid shit?

> What do you think happens to default rates on
> those loans when borrowers have pulled all of
> their equity out...

Defaults occur when one cannot make scheduled payments over some set period of time. The amount of equity in a subject home is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Cashflow -- something that refi's tend to improve -- can have something to do with it.

> Yes, there obviously was a bubble as anyone with
> any sense understands.

There was no bubble. You simply don't understand markets. Or much of anything else either as near as I can tell. Just a useless, babbling, copy-and-pasting waste of time.

> The breakdown of home sales and prices was not
> just a simple, normal adjustment due to higher
> rates.

Yes, it was. All your obscurantist talk of stratified market saturation is worthless made-up goober-piffle. A sharp decline in interest rates is what drove home prices up, and a graduated increase in rates is what caused prices to peak and then begin to decline again.

> But, whether intentional or not, you do now seem
> to realize that a significant breakdown in the
> housing market happened PRIOR TO to the sub-prime
> crash itself. The faltering of the market was
> what caused the most shaky part to fail, not the
> other way around as you seem to be trying to
> suggest. The failure of the real estate market
> was well underway long before that. The effects
> on credit markets obviously compounded that going
> forward.

I can only laugh. This is just more of your meritless imaginations and baseless babble. There was nothing wrong except for the fatally expanding levels of Wall Street securitized garbage paper crapping out all over the balance sheets of major international banks and other financial institutions. Markets for these assets simply evaporated, and One after another, these major players had to reclassify tens and then hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets as non-performing. Thanks to the invisible tentacles of systemic risk, no bank could trust the books of any other bank, and you ended with a full-blown credit freeze. As that issue was not resolved within the financial economy, it bled out into the broader economy in the form of the pain and unpleasantness associated with the Great Recession.

> Existing home sales drop 4.1% in July, median
> prices drop in most regions
> Updated {b}8/24/2006[/b} 9:00 AM ET
> By Noelle Knox, USA TODAY

Yo, dumbo. Interest rates and home prices had peaked in the Spring of 2006. August is already summer. You are reporting downstream effects as if they were primary events. That's really dense and dumb.

> The faltering market, lack of buyers at artificially
> high "market" prices, job losses and foreclosures
> referenced all were happening BEFORE the sub-prime
> crash, not as a result of it and the subsequent
> "Great Recession."

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! The "subprime crash" had begun in mid-2004 when interest rates started back up again. Month after month, rates rose and rate triggers began to be sprung. From that point on, it was only a matter of time until the failures reached critical mass. This was ONCE AGAIN all an effect of CREDIT MARKETS. That's where the problems were, and they were there because of Wall Street.

> Another brilliant revelation. Did you learn that
> by watching cartoons too? lol

No, but you did learn it by listening to me.

> Here, let me help you with your own talking points.

No chance, simpleton. You have no clue as to how any of this unfolded at all. When you can't distinguish between cause and effect, you are never going to be able to get the story straight. Like Sutter's Mill, CRA was important as a signalling mechanism. That was all. But the first responders who showed up to file all the early claims in this case were all the crooks and liars on Wall Street. They took the ball from the GSE's and ran with it. They raped and pillaged their way to massive profits in subprime while dumping all the risk off onto other people. That risk eventually blew up in an event so large that Wall Street itself was destroyed in it. Have you got that now?

Kona Coffee Lost Big Time Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You got shut down my friend once again. He's got
> you good. Now dont blow , we dont need all the bad
> words here. And for Gods Sake dont talk about sex
> acts like a typical Democrat and call names. Get
> up tommorow Smell the Kona and feed the birds. The
> fact the people in the Post story were Real Estate
> investors so what lots of people played the game
> and lost but not me or you, we are the wise ones.

This other lame-brain has no actual clue as to how the Great Recession arose and played out. He has been barking up all the wrong trees from the get go. It;s pathetic.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Dream Commitment Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ummm, again dumbass, you can't seem to grasp
> that
> > I'm not disputing that the sub-prime abuses
> were
> > the proximate cause of the crash and related
> > escalating effects on credit markets.
>
> You're the one who took forever to get hold of
> it.

Uh, no. see that word "again?" I've already tried to get it through your thick ass head many posts ago. You've gout your head so far up your ass and you're so set on parroting your talking points that you can't permit yourself to even acknowledge that I wasn't disputing that.

>
> > That's the problem with ideologues like you.
>
> Guess what the problem is with people who don't
> know what they are talking about. Facts have
> nothing to do with ideology. They are just facts.
> You very much need to work on that.
>
> > In fact, as anyone can see by looking at where
> the
> > larger losses happened with respect to the
> housing
> > market, it was not in CRA-specific sub-prime
> > loans. It was in the GSE's playground where
> > relaxed standards had let borrowers up from
> that
> > level greatly over-extend themselves.
>
> More just plain stupid. CRA subprime loans were
> but a fraction of all subprime loans -- a
> fraction that was much less likely to be
> encumbered by high-cost, high-profit terms of the
> sort that would cause a loan to FAIL given even a
> modest rise in interest rates. Who was behind
> those OTHER subprime loans? It was Wall Street --
> the people who had no standards at all and who
> processed all that happy garbage into the system
> until the system simply gave out and failed. The
> subsequent second, third, and fourth waves of
> default were of course horses of a different color
> entirely. They were not causes of the original
> crisis but its effects, no matter your ignorance
> or your desperate desire to paint them in a
> different light.
>

Gosh. Another brilliant revelation. CRA-subprime loans were only a portion of the total sub-prime market and there was a compounded effect! Who knew? lol You fucktard.


> > The massive numbers of failures of loans in FL,
> AZ, CA, NV,
> > etc., weren't CRA-borrowers.
>
> Who wrote those notes? Who securitized them?


The various partners of the GSEs did in huge numbers and that's where much if not most ended up. Now you're starting to get it.


> > The GSE's played a primary role in making and
> > legitimizing that market (see Mozilo's commments
>
> > above).
>
> Worthless assfuck drivel. No other words for it.
> You are simply too ignorant of actual events to
> have any sort of clue at all. The GSE's were not
> driving the market anymore. Should I post the
> fucking graph again, you hapless stupid shit?
>

Your graph is MBS issuance only and done on a percentage basis. It doesn't reflect purchases. Who do you think was BUYING the issued securities (in addition to issuing their own) and helping to driving a huge market for the crap? How do you think that they ended up with the tons of crap that they accumulated?



Among many other examples noting the problems with the GSE's portfolios:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/business/05freddie.html


> > What do you think happens to default rates on
> > those loans when borrowers have pulled all of
> > their equity out...
>
> Defaults occur when one cannot make scheduled
> payments over some set period of time. The amount
> of equity in a subject home is COMPLETELY
> IRRELEVANT. Cashflow -- something that refi's
> tend to improve -- can have something to do with
> it.
>

No, it's not irrelevant. People who had pulled all of their equity out, were facing a required refi on poor terms/at higher rates, were over-extended and marginally qualified to begin with, and who were watching the value of their house rapidly decline were much more likely to just walk away.

> > Yes, there obviously was a bubble as anyone
> with
> > any sense understands.
>
> There was no bubble. You simply don't understand
> markets. Or much of anything else either as near
> as I can tell. Just a useless, babbling,
> copy-and-pasting waste of time.
>

Yeah, it's just me. Oh... and sources like the Fed, Treasury, NYT, WSJ, Economist, etc., etc., and other reputable sources which have numerous detailed post mortem analyses of the bubble that didn't exist. lol


> > The breakdown of home sales and prices was not
> > just a simple, normal adjustment due to higher
> > rates.
>
> Yes, it was. All your obscurantist talk of
> stratified market saturation is worthless made-up
> goober-piffle. A sharp decline in interest rates
> is what drove home prices up, and a graduated
> increase in rates is what caused prices to peak
> and then begin to decline again.


Even you understand that was not the sole factor in play as shown in your own blaming of private brokers generating huge numbers of loans.


>
> > But, whether intentional or not, you do now
> seem
> > to realize that a significant breakdown in the
> > housing market happened PRIOR TO to the
> sub-prime
> > crash itself. The faltering of the market was
> > what caused the most shaky part to fail, not
> the
> > other way around as you seem to be trying to
> > suggest. The failure of the real estate market
> > was well underway long before that. The
> effects
> > on credit markets obviously compounded that
> going
> > forward.
>
> I can only laugh. This is just more of your
> meritless imaginations and baseless babble. There
> was nothing wrong except for the fatally expanding
> levels of Wall Street securitized garbage paper
> crapping out all over the balance sheets of major
> international banks and other financial
> institutions. Markets for these assets simply
> evaporated, and One after another, these major
> players had to reclassify tens and then hundreds
> of billions of dollars worth of assets as
> non-performing. Thanks to the invisible tentacles
> of systemic risk, no bank could trust the books of
> any other bank, and you ended with a full-blown
> credit freeze. As that issue was not resolved
> within the financial economy, it bled out into the
> broader economy in the form of the pain and
> unpleasantness associated with the Great
> Recession.

No, while as I noted long ago that was the proximate cause for the crash, that came much later as an effect of the underlying housing market beginning to fail. As you note yourself in citing earlier problems that preceded it. The crash did not cause the problems in the housing market. It did cause huge problems going forward.

>
> > Existing home sales drop 4.1% in July, median
> > prices drop in most regions
> > Updated {b}8/24/2006[/b} 9:00 AM ET
> > By Noelle Knox, USA TODAY
>
> Yo, dumbo. Interest rates and home prices had
> peaked in the Spring of 2006. August is already
> summer. You are reporting downstream effects as
> if they were primary events. That's really dense
> and dumb.


It's reporting the events which preceded the crash, again showing that the housing market stalling out happened prior to the crash itself. By your own admission here it peaked in 2006 and was showing signs of weakness prior to in some key markets.


> > The faltering market, lack of buyers at
> artificially
> > high "market" prices, job losses and
> foreclosures
> > referenced all were happening BEFORE the
> sub-prime
> > crash, not as a result of it and the subsequent
>
> > "Great Recession."
>
> Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! The "subprime crash" had
> begun in mid-2004 when interest rates started back
> up again. Month after month, rates rose and rate
> triggers began to be sprung. From that point on,
> it was only a matter of time until the failures
> reached critical mass. This was ONCE AGAIN all an
> effect of CREDIT MARKETS. That's where the
> problems were, and they were there because of Wall
> Street.


No, the crash did not start then. Events leading up to the crash started, interest rates being one of a number.


>
> > Another brilliant revelation. Did you learn
> that
> > by watching cartoons too? lol
>
> No, but you did learn it by listening to me.
>
> > Here, let me help you with your own talking
> points.
>
> No chance, simpleton. You have no clue as to how
> any of this unfolded at all. When you can't
> distinguish between cause and effect, you are
> never going to be able to get the story straight.
> Like Sutter's Mill, CRA was important as a
> signalling mechanism. That was all. But the
> first responders who showed up to file all the
> early claims in this case were all the crooks and
> liars on Wall Street. They took the ball from the
> GSE's and ran with it. They raped and pillaged
> their way to massive profits in subprime while
> dumping all the risk off onto other people. That
> risk eventually blew up in an event so large that
> Wall Street itself was destroyed in it. Have you
> got that now?

Once again, as I've said numerous times but you can't seem to turn the page on your standard talking points, CRA-specific sub-prime wasn't a primary problem. Your continued seal-like ork ork orking about private brokers and securitization by Wall Street and credit markets again and again and again, also was acknowledged from the start. Yet you STILL fail to get that the GSEs were doing exactly the same thing and also played a significant role. Got it now?

American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. They did buy his slop. Lots of Alt-A
> crap. Lots of sub-prime securities wrapped in
> various forms.

More desperate lies in various forms, including chicken-shit schmaltz and imprecision. It seems such vapid failures really are all you have left at this point.

As they have always done, the GSE's simply REJECTED slop paper that did not meet their minimum underwriting standards. All that garbage paper that was generated simply to keep the Wall Street profit-and-bonus machine cranking away had to go off and into the secondary markets through the no-standards, private-label securitization machine instead. Plain, simple, historical fact.

Meanwhile, the GSE's had acquired and were exploring test portfolios of top-grade subprime paper as they worked to understand and define terms for managing newly evolving subprime credit markets. As they long had, they also bought and sold high-income paper in secondary markets as part of normal hedging of assets held in their own portfolios. These operations were inconsequential in their broader effects, but because the GSE's were running a multi-trillion dollar book, the volumes of everything they did look large in absolute terms. Fear of large numbers is a pathetic goober-trait however.

> They were all happy with the increases in home
> ownership rates. Right up until it wasn't working
> and then all of those easy-term, signature loans
> and similar suddenly became "predatory lending."

No, Wall Street was happy, as their profits and bonuses kept rolling in. Bush and his hapless henchmen were happy. In addition to strangling the GSE's -- who themselves were not among the happy -- the Bushies were trying to shore up the image of the GOP among minority voters. They would even change their wording from "affordable" or "low-income" housing to "minority" housing. Karl Rove and his "real math" at work there as well. Meanwhile, predatory practices and abuse of credit markets were always predatory practices and abuse of credit markets. Except in the eye of Ayn Rand-reading Alan Greenspan. To him, markets were wise enough to regulate themselves. Such a stooge. The trade and academic presses were meanwhile increasingly cranking out warnings. No one could tell in 2003-2004 what form or shape an ultimate crisis might take, but more and more people were recognizing that a crisis was indeed building on the wrong side of the horizon. The people who should have taken note simply continued to turn a blind eye. There were profits to be made after all.

> Problem is that you only know what you want to be
> the case. lol

No, the problem is that as a long-time non-partisan researcher and analyst, my knowledge and understanding of the history here VASTLY exceed your own. You have painted yourself into corners of ignorance left and right and are increasingly left only with resort to third-grade rhetoric and simple fabrication to excuse yourself. You should have just crawled quietly away quite some time ago.

> Uh, if you'd been paying attention to what I said
> versus just repeating your programmed robotic
> talking points then you would have noted that I
> said that from the start. That was never the
> issue.

So now you argue that I've been right about all of that all along. I'm staggered by such a blow. Talk about hitting below the belt.

> The issue was whether and to what extent the GSEs
> also participated and contributed. Which was
> significantly on both counts.

No, the role of the GSE's in the crisis was small and it came late in the game -- after all the horses had been let out of the barn. That has always been the case, and your goober-piffle claims and reports have not changed the plain and established facts in any way at all.

> Idiot! They did the same thing. They bought the
> same thing. They facilitated the sale of what
> shouldn't have been in the market. They were very
> active players in the game. You act as though the
> only thing that the GSEs were involved with was
> 30-year conventional paper. Not even remotely
> close to the case.

stagger, stagger, stagger. There was simply no comparison between the game as played by the GSE's and the game as played by Wall Street. You simply are not bright or honest enough to have noted even the most glaring and egregious of differences between these two operations. They DID NOT do the same things. They DID NOT equally create and then pass on weak paper as if it were strong. The portfolios of the original loans they dealt with WERE NOT at all alike in terms of underwriting quality and forward survivability. You're just exposing more of your extensive and increasingly weepy Bozo-ness here.

> Focus for a moment retard. Really concentrate now.
> You ready? Sure? What the private market did
> doesn't negate what the GSEs did. You continually
> going back to talk about what unscrupulous private
> brokers did doesn't address what the GSEs did
> themselves. Got it? Good.

What an ignorant pinhead. It was not the GSE's who were busy abusing credit markets. They were not out there bribing local appraisers. They weren't misrepresenting any of their products or strong-arming reluctant customers. They weren't wrapping up abysmally low quality paper into all but inscrutable packages and then pressuring bond raters to ignore what might have seemed like potential problems. All of that was happening on massive scales on Wall Street while the GSE shares of the market were falling below 25% on the primary side and 40% on the secondary side. Both had been well above 70% early in the 2000's. Those gaps and who filled them were what created the credit crisis. This whole mess was the work of Wall Street. Aided and abetted by the ineptitude of regulators who sat by and did nothing. There's not enough lipstick in the world to turn that pig into anything other than a fat, ugly pig.

> What don't you understand about Alt-A alone being 11%
> of their portfolio and half of their losses in 2008?

Alt-A is not toxic, 11% is not any market-altering proportion, and 2008 is after the freaking fact. Nothing that happened in 2008 was a cause of the crisis. The crisis was already a done deal by the end of 2005 perhaps, but certainly by mid-2006. You've just not got ANY sort of handle on how ANY of this came about.

> No. Once again, the market was beginning to fail
> prior to the sub-prime crash.

There was no sub-prime crash, just an ever-worsening erosion in the qualifications of Wall Street's subprime "customers". Real estate and other asset markets were again NOT the actors, but were the acted upon in this drama. You are once again being some Case-Schiller simpleton seeking out of ignorance to hype what were effects of the crisis as if they were causes. The problems here were all in and emanating from credit markets that had been clogged up by the stupid crap that Wall Street -- not the GSE's -- had dumped into them.

> No. That's on a cash-flow basis and doesn't take
> into account all liabilities assumed.

What? You made the rather astonishingly ignorant claim that "Most of [the GSE contingent liability] still is out there" when in fact, time and an improving economy have reduced the number through 2025 to zero. You got black-eye caught being a mewling dorkus here.

> Again not the point. Reduced equity in homes in
> combination with easier qualification and refi
> terms which turned out bad given the market all
> resulted in greater risk on the part of those
> holding the paper. The refi itself wasn't the
> point. Take a comprehension course some day.

Take an anti-bullshit course some day, you foolish babbling troll. It is certainly true that some people were suckered by Wall Street crooks and liars into high-cost subprime refi's when they were qualified for prime. But that's just another example of Wall Street's patterns of profiteering through credit market abuse. Otherwise, your contentions concerning refi's are and have always been stupid.

Once again, defaults are not related to equity positions. They are caused by cashflow shortfalls against set payment schedules. Cashflow shortfalls are especially likely when you abruptly lose your job and your cashflow simply collapses. They can happen as well when those supposedly set payment schedules suddenly blow up in your face because some trigger that was hidden away in the fine print has finally been struck, just as the underwriter always knew it would be. These sorts of things are the direct and indirect effects of the credit crisis that Wall Street quite knowingly created. You meanwhile have not quite knowingly created much of anything at all here.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Dream Commitment Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong. They did buy his slop. Lots of Alt-A
> > crap. Lots of sub-prime securities wrapped in
> > various forms.
>
> More desperate lies in various forms, including
> chicken-shit schmaltz and imprecision. It seems
> such vapid failures really are all you have left
> at this point.
>
> As they have always done, the GSE's simply
> REJECTED slop paper that did not meet their
> minimum underwriting standards. All that garbage
> paper that was generated simply to keep the Wall
> Street profit-and-bonus machine cranking away had
> to go off and into the secondary markets through
> the no-standards, private-label securitization
> machine instead. Plain, simple, historical fact.
> Meanwhile, the GSE's had acquired and were
> exploring test portfolios of top-grade subprime
> paper as they worked to understand and define
> terms for managing newly evolving subprime credit
> markets. As they long had, they also bought and
> sold high-income paper in secondary markets as
> part of normal hedging of assets held in their own
> portfolios. These operations were inconsequential
> in their broader effects, but because the GSE's
> were running a multi-trillion dollar book, the
> volumes of everything they did look large in
> absolute terms. Fear of large numbers is a
> pathetic goober-trait however.
>
>

Wrong. They did not reject the crap. They lowered standards and bought tons of crap. They were not "testing," they were steadily buying large amounts and represented a primary market for the crap.


PLS Market Purchases
Subprime and Alt-A
($000,000)

Fannie Mae
Subprime/Alt-A
2007 $ 15,971 $ 5,288
2006 $ 35,606 $ 11,973
2005 $ 24,469 $ 16,109
2004 $ 67,003 $ 21,999
2003 $ 25,769 $ 8,104
2002 $ 5,144 $ 1,756
2001 $ 5,087 $ 492
2000 $ 2,410 $ 1,185

Fannie Mae
Subprime/Alt-A
2007 $ 43,667 $ 10,008
2006 $ 74,761 $ 30,546
2005 $ 114,636 $ 26,994
2004 $ 77,129 $ 18,162
2003 $ 44,051 $ 10,373
2002 $ 37,823 $ 8,906
2001 $ 15,586 $ 3,670
2000 $ 6,564 $ 1,546

Combined GSE % of PLS Market
Subprime/Alt-A
2007 82.6% 9.3%
2006 29.2% 9.9%
2005 30.5% 10.2%
2004 41.2% 16.5%
2003 33.2% 18.5%
2002 37.7% 18.4%
2001 30.6% 11.4%
2000 19.0% 15.9%

Source: GAO Analysis of Loan Performance data, FHFA, Enterprise Credit Supplements

Again, you're living in some dream world where you seem to think that the GSEs still were only buying/holding 30 year/10% down conventional loans from 750+ FICO borrowers. That's complete fantasy.

They bought large and increasing amounts of high LTV loans, < 620 FICO, interest only and negative amortization loans, Alt-A ($497 billion worth), etc. Their net MBS purchases containing increasing amounts of such loans also increased greatly while their portfolios decreased. They were playing the exact same game that Wall Street was. As values and their market share began to fall they ramped up to try to compensate. That all ended very badly.

It was not at all "inconsequential." The crap represented the vast majority of their huge losses experienced and was the primary reason why they had to be bailed out. The above doesn't even count the large amounts of other marginal crap that they held just above Alt-A.


> > They were all happy with the increases in home
> > ownership rates. Right up until it wasn't
> working
> > and then all of those easy-term, signature
> loans
> > and similar suddenly became "predatory
> lending."
>
> No, Wall Street was happy, as their profits and
> bonuses kept rolling in. Bush and his hapless
> henchmen were happy. In addition to strangling
> the GSE's -- who themselves were not among the
> happy -- the Bushies were trying to shore up the
> image of the GOP among minority voters. They
> would even change their wording from "affordable"
> or "low-income" housing to "minority" housing.
> Karl Rove and his "real math" at work there as
> well. Meanwhile, predatory practices and abuse of
> credit markets were always predatory practices and
> abuse of credit markets. Except in the eye of Ayn
> Rand-reading Alan Greenspan. To him, markets were
> wise enough to regulate themselves. Such a
> stooge. The trade and academic presses were
> meanwhile increasingly cranking out warnings. No
> one could tell in 2003-2004 what form or shape an
> ultimate crisis might take, but more and more
> people were recognizing that a crisis was indeed
> building on the wrong side of the horizon. The
> people who should have taken note simply continued
> to turn a blind eye. There were profits to be
> made after all.


Yet the GSE's kept buying crap significantly helping to drive the crap market.


> > Problem is that you only know what you want to
> be
> > the case. lol
>
> No, the problem is that as a long-time
> non-partisan researcher...


Bwahahahahahahaha. That one almost made me spit coffee out of my nose.


> away quite some time ago.
>
> > Uh, if you'd been paying attention to what I
> said
> > versus just repeating your programmed robotic
> > talking points then you would have noted that I
> > said that from the start. That was never the
> > issue.
>
> So now you argue that I've been right about all of
> that all along. I'm staggered by such a blow.
> Talk about hitting below the belt.
>


Uh, dumbshit. If you'd been paying attention instead of just repeating your tired "nonpartisan" talking points, then you'd know that was never the issue here.


> > The issue was whether and to what extent the
> GSEs
> > also participated and contributed. Which was
> > significantly on both counts.
>
> No, the role of the GSE's in the crisis was small
> and it came late in the game -- after all the
> horses had been let out of the barn. That has
> always been the case, and your goober-piffle
> claims and reports have not changed the plain and
> established facts in any way at all.
>
> > Idiot! They did the same thing. They bought
> the
> > same thing. They facilitated the sale of what
> > shouldn't have been in the market. They were
> very
> > active players in the game. You act as though
> the
> > only thing that the GSEs were involved with was
> > 30-year conventional paper. Not even remotely
> > close to the case.
>
> stagger, stagger, stagger. There was simply no
> comparison between the game as played by the GSE's
> and the game as played by Wall Street. You simply
> are not bright or honest enough to have noted even
> the most glaring and egregious of differences
> between these two operations. They DID NOT do the
> same things. They DID NOT equally create and then
> pass on weak paper as if it were strong. The
> portfolios of the original loans they dealt with
> WERE NOT at all alike in terms of underwriting
> quality and forward survivability. You're just
> exposing more of your extensive and increasingly
> weepy Bozo-ness here.
>

Bullshit. See above. They were buying increasing amounts of crap and attempting to increase their own returns right along with the rest of the players in the market. They were a primary driver in the crap market. It was not small. It was not late in the market relative to anyone else.


> > Focus for a moment retard. Really concentrate
> now.
> > You ready? Sure? What the private market did
>
> > doesn't negate what the GSEs did. You
> continually
> > going back to talk about what unscrupulous
> private
> > brokers did doesn't address what the GSEs did
> > themselves. Got it? Good.
>
> What an ignorant pinhead. It was not the GSE's
> who were busy abusing credit markets. They were
> not out there bribing local appraisers. They
> weren't misrepresenting any of their products or
> strong-arming reluctant customers. They weren't
> wrapping up abysmally low quality paper into all
> but inscrutable packages and then pressuring bond
> raters to ignore what might have seemed like
> potential problems. All of that was happening on
> massive scales on Wall Street while the GSE shares
> of the market were falling below 25% on the
> primary side and 40% on the secondary side. Both
> had been well above 70% early in the 2000's.
> Those gaps and who filled them were what created
> the credit crisis. This whole mess was the work
> of Wall Street. Aided and abetted by the
> ineptitude of regulators who sat by and did
> nothing. There's not enough lipstick in the world
> to turn that pig into anything other than a fat,
> ugly pig.

Bullshit. See above. Would you like another +100 sources documenting the huge amounts of crap that the GSEs bought and the downstream effect in terms of their losses?

>
> > What don't you understand about Alt-A alone
> being 11%
> > of their portfolio and half of their losses in
> 2008?
>
> Alt-A is not toxic, 11% is not any market-altering
> proportion, and 2008 is after the freaking fact.
> Nothing that happened in 2008 was a cause of the
> crisis. The crisis was already a done deal by the
> end of 2005 perhaps, but certainly by mid-2006.
> You've just not got ANY sort of handle on how ANY
> of this came about.


Alt-A definitely was toxic. It was the source of the bulk of their losses. Fully 50% in the quarter cited from 11% of *their* portfolio (not the market dummy) and a lot more to either side of that. And that was only when they (finally) stopped buying crap. That they STILL were buying as much crap as they were up to that point even in the face of huge losses is impressive in itself.

>
> > No. Once again, the market was beginning to
> fail
> > prior to the sub-prime crash.
>
> There was no sub-prime crash, just an
> ever-worsening erosion in the qualifications of
> Wall Street's subprime "customers". Real estate
> and other asset markets were again NOT the actors,
> but were the acted upon in this drama. You are
> once again being some Case-Schiller simpleton
> seeking out of ignorance to hype what were effects
> of the crisis as if they were causes. The
> problems here were all in and emanating from
> credit markets that had been clogged up by the
> stupid crap that Wall Street -- not the GSE's --
> had dumped into them.


There obviously was a crash. Now you're just off into complete fantasy. Because there were various events prior to doesn't change that a significant crash event did happen.


>
> > No. That's on a cash-flow basis and doesn't
> take
> > into account all liabilities assumed.
>
> What? You made the rather astonishingly ignorant
> claim that "Most of [the GSE contingent liability]
> still is out there" when in fact, time and an
> improving economy have reduced the number through
> 2025 to zero. You got black-eye caught being a
> mewling dorkus here.


No. That's counting all of the risk which was assumed by Treasury. Then you try to redefine by inserting your own [definition] into the quote to try to make it correct. You're such a dumbshit. lol


>
> > Again not the point. Reduced equity in homes
> in
> > combination with easier qualification and refi
> > terms which turned out bad given the market all
> > resulted in greater risk on the part of those
> > holding the paper. The refi itself wasn't the
> > point. Take a comprehension course some day.
>
> Take an anti-bullshit course some day, you foolish
> babbling troll. It is certainly true that some
> people were suckered by Wall Street crooks and
> liars into high-cost subprime refi's when they
> were qualified for prime. But that's just another
> example of Wall Street's patterns of profiteering
> through credit market abuse. Otherwise, your
> contentions concerning refi's are and have always
> been stupid.
>
> Once again, defaults are not related to equity
> positions. They are caused by cashflow shortfalls
> against set payment schedules. Cashflow
> shortfalls are especially likely when you abruptly
> lose your job and your cashflow simply collapses.
> They can happen as well when those supposedly set
> payment schedules suddenly blow up in your face
> because some trigger that was hidden away in the
> fine print has finally been struck, just as the
> underwriter always knew it would be. These sorts
> of things are the direct and indirect effects of
> the credit crisis that Wall Street quite knowingly
> created. You meanwhile have not quite knowingly
> created much of anything at all here.


Default rates correlate directly to equity positions as any number of analyses demonstrate. Greatly so as you approach and reach negative equity. Various practices contributing to reduced equity positions including equity-out refis, low/no down payment loans which created effective negative equity positions as prices fell, equity loans, etc., all contributed to higher default rates.

Posted by: American Dream Commitment ()
Date: February 06, 2015 02:24AM
-------------------------------------------------------

02:24AM? Wow! That's a lot of sleep to lose over a little butthurt. Must have been a lot of butthurt, I would guess.

Both of you know a whole lot about all this and truth is on both sides.
I expect other economists are watching as these threads get on Google.

Now old Pal, just give it up. You cant protect Democrats from History.

More then enough blame to go around. And you cant defend the mistakes the people in the Post story made.

How about your buddy Oama taking credit for some job growth lately. Of Course lower oil prices had nothing to do with it, and eased consumer spending.

Fuck it for now roblems with the site

Why is it that this sites word processor eats the words.Erasing what you write Oh well F it enjoy the Kona Sunday will be warmer I hear.

Old Pal "Kona" Now Now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Both of you know a whole lot about all this and
> truth is on both sides.

No, only one of us does, and it ain't the other guy. He's had no experience here beyond FOX News watching and Heritage Foundation reading. How to become a stooge in two easy lessons.

> Now old Pal, just give it up. You cant protect
> Democrats from History.

Facts are facts. Let them fall where they may. I am not a Democrat. I certainly voted for Obama over McCain and again over Romney on the simple basis of "Cogito Ergo Obama". But I owe neither him nor his party anything more than that.

The simple facts however are that while Obama and his policies have often fallen short on a variety of measures, they have simply kicked the living shit out of anything and everything that these whackjob total nonsense Republicans have proposed or had to say. This is not some close call. Obama might deserve no better than a C+ or B-, but the Republicans are yet in the midst of a long-running series of F's and even worse. They have not had anything even remotely worthwhile to say for a long, long time.

> More then enough blame to go around.

Blame doesn't get portioned out like soup at a soup kitchen or dealt out like cards in a hand of bridge. It gets assigned to the people who earned and deserve it. In this case, all the soup and all 52 cards go straight to Bush and his Wall Street henchmen. Nobody else gets any at all.

So I actually have a few more words to offer today, but first I wanted to post another graph. Like the previous one, it is elegant in its simplicity and yet in one fell swoop, it simply rips the stuffing out of broad swaths of what poor little doofus-boy has tried to say. Imagine that...
.
Attachments:

@ American Dream Commitment:
-------------------------------------------------------

Really just a few lines here to point out once again that your posts are poorly informed, even more poorly thought out, and at times patently false and even deliberately dishonest. You may wish to consider that the set of all worthless lying assholes includes those who dispute something, get toasted on it, and then deny that they ever disputed it to begin with. It also includes those who try to cover up their wanton errors with regurgitations of worthless invented verbal schlock, along with dullards who fall for the stooge-like notion that large numbers are in and of themselves indicative of something dangerous, and of course those who use ad nauseum, back-up-the-truck, copy-and-paste of meaningless and unrelated materials in an effort to see pages of garbage outweigh a few sentences of truth.

Here would be a few random examples of the latter...

The GSE's played no significant role in the evolution of the credit crisis. They were tangentially involved and nothing more. The great calamity was actually born of a game played successfully early on that later began to weaken, and then abruptly collapsed like the WTC towers on 9/11. That game was originated, run, and ultimately run into the ground by the cabal collectively known as Wall Street with the active and knowing encouragement and collaboration of maladroit Bush administration officials, starting with the man at the top.

The success of CRA portfolios in the 1990's assured that new subprime mortgage markets would be tapped and developed. But profiteers and opportunists assured that the growth of these markets would largely be a non-GSE affair, one that occurred outside of traditional mortgage channels, being principally driven and funded by a near-limitless capacity for creation of no-standards private-label mortgage- and asset-backed securities.

As part of normal hedging operations -- and more so as time went by in response to rising demands (cheer-leading) from the Bush administration -- the GSE's held portfolios built from AAA-rated (i.e., prime-like or better) tranches of private-label securities. Many of those were unfortunately acquired in and around 2006 when housing prices were at their peak. Issuers all along however were having no difficulty at all in selling these AAA notes. Quite the contrary in fact, as demand from around the world for AAA assets was leading Wall Street to develop and market synthetic AAA securities as well as the real things. Simply put, GSE purchases did not play any material market-making or price-setting role here.

Nor in the end did these assets come to comprise a large share of the credit losses ultimately experienced by the GSE's. Tales to the contrary tend to be overblown after-the-fact fluff and invented nonsense coming out of the mouths of those with significant tracks of their own in need of covering up. Such analyses often refer to "risky mortgages," those being mortgages that eventually failed. Referring to such tactics as examples of "hindsight bias" is a perhaps too gentle way of pointing out such problems.

It would be well to note here as well that the GSE's were active traders. Much of what they acquired, they soon sold. And given the times, significant portions of what they acquired were also extinguished in the market via refinancing, often within two years of issue. As the result, GSE holdings of non-traditional securities were always considerably lower than the mere sum of their acquisitions. Fannie and Freddie combined never held more than $200 billion worth of AAA private-label securities on their books.

The actual problems caused by private-label securities did not in any case come from these AAA tranches, but rather from the junior tranches themselves as well as CDO's that junior tranches were often resecuritized into. CDO's offered Wall Street a way to tease one more thin layer of AAA paper out of what was more broadly garbage. The GSE's purchased and held virtually $0 worth of either junior tranches or the repackaged CDO's manufactured from them.

Between 2001 and 2003, the GSE's had funded nearly 70% of all mortgages originated. From 2004 to 2006, GSE primary market shares were 47%, 41%, and 40%. Guess where the rest was going. Put another way, total US mortgage debt outstanding grew by 11.9% per year between 2003 and 2007. GSE holdings grew by 7.6% per year. Again, guess where the rest was going. There were two sides to the how and why of what was happening. First, Wall Street was making huge profits, so damn-the-torpedoes expansion of markets in general was Job-1 for them. Second, an increasingly saturated market was forcing them to push more and more non-conforming products onto more and more non-conforming borrowers, meaning that larger and larger segments of the broad mortgage market could ONLY have been securitized through private-label shops. Including Alt-A, subprime mortgage originations in 2002 had been $171 billion. Three years later, the number was $877 billion, reflecting an annualized rate of growth of 72%. Guess where all that came from and was going.

The bottom line here is exactly what it has always been. The credit crisis and Great Recession that was allowed to grow out of that was a product of the excesses of over-the-top cowboy capitalists on Wall Street who had been urged on and given free run of the place by mindless laissez-faire, free-market regulators in Washington. Attempts to nibble away at the margins of the big picture are pointless. The essential facts of the matter will remain utterly unchanged.

It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I actually have a few more words to offer
> today, but first I wanted to post another graph.
> Like the previous one, it is elegant in its
> simplicity and yet in one fell swoop, it simply
> rips the stuffing out of broad swaths of what poor
> little doofus-boy has tried to say. Imagine
> that...
> .


So, in other words, you now agree that (a) the GSEs were primary players in the subprime market comprizing THE largest single outlets for the crap, and (b) that, contrary to your early claims, their involvement in the market at high levels began long before late in 2006 and in small amounts as you earlier claimed.

Also, your graph only show suprime and not Alt-A and the other crap just above it where most of their losses came from. The reason why they bought less subprime in later years is because there was less subprime to buy. From page 16 of Fannie's 2006 Annual Report:

Quote

Since HUD set the home purchase subgoals in 2004, the housing markets have experienced a dramatic change. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data released in 2006 show that the share of the primary mortgage market serving low- and moderate-income borrowers declined in 2005, reducing our ability to purchase and securitize mortgage loans that meet the HUD subgoals. The National Association of REALTORS» housing affordability index has dropped from 130.7 in 2003 to 106.1 in 2006. In addition, because subprime mortgages tended to meet many of the HUD goals and subgoals, the recent disruption in the subprime market has further limited our ability to meet these goals. Our housing goals and subgoals continue to increase in 2007 and 2008. If our efforts to meet the housing goals and subgoals prove to be insufficient, we may become subject to a housing plan that could require us to take additional steps that could have an adverse effect on our profitability. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors” for more information on how changes we are making to our business strategies in order to meet HUD’s housing goals and subgoals may reduce our profitability.

Also, if you include the Alt-A and other marginal crap which they began to purchase in larger amounts in later years, then the line shown would be higher and continue more upward longer.