Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
American Dream Commitment
()
Date: February 10, 2015 04:49PM
It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ 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.
Just can't let those talking points go huh?
Your tranche nonsense is just more careful parsing of terms and omission of detail to avoid recognizing what was happening and the role played. Yes, as I said earlier, they did tend to take take the higher tranches; however, what was included at those levels also was based on smoke and fantasy valuations. As evidenced by the problems and later massive losses on such which were becoming apparent even earlier on. Over 90% of losses experienced were from securities and loans that GSEs owned or guaranteed prior to the end of 2007, most of which was picked up as the market was peaking. They were sucked into the group-think and greed right along with everyone else. Would you like me to post the numbers, dollar values, and percentages of high-LTV, low/no doc loans, interest-only, negative-amortizing adjustable rate loans, and various other Alt-A and above crap was included in those "AAA" tranches from their own annual reports?
Also, as i said earlier, even where they took the higher tranches of packages they facilitated the larger securitization of everything else sold along with it and the larger securitized market by lending their weight to it and permitting lower-level crap to be sold along with it much of which otherwise could not have been. i.e., Their presence in the market carried much greater weight than only what they purchased/guaranteed directly.
Bottom line is that those "cowboy capitalists" included those at the GSEs who were playing the exact same game, significantly increasing risk and leverage exposure all along the way. " "Laissez-faire regulation by Washington" applied equally to the activities of the GSEs in becoming more permissive over time and letting them get in over their heads. ~10% to ~40% of the market depending on what and when you want to count (not even considering secondary effects of their presence in the market) concentrated within two primary entities is not "nibbling at the margins." Neither is the "only" ~12% of their portfolio deemed marginal when it comprises the point-source for the vast majority of their losses.
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ 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.
Just can't let those talking points go huh?
Your tranche nonsense is just more careful parsing of terms and omission of detail to avoid recognizing what was happening and the role played. Yes, as I said earlier, they did tend to take take the higher tranches; however, what was included at those levels also was based on smoke and fantasy valuations. As evidenced by the problems and later massive losses on such which were becoming apparent even earlier on. Over 90% of losses experienced were from securities and loans that GSEs owned or guaranteed prior to the end of 2007, most of which was picked up as the market was peaking. They were sucked into the group-think and greed right along with everyone else. Would you like me to post the numbers, dollar values, and percentages of high-LTV, low/no doc loans, interest-only, negative-amortizing adjustable rate loans, and various other Alt-A and above crap was included in those "AAA" tranches from their own annual reports?
Also, as i said earlier, even where they took the higher tranches of packages they facilitated the larger securitization of everything else sold along with it and the larger securitized market by lending their weight to it and permitting lower-level crap to be sold along with it much of which otherwise could not have been. i.e., Their presence in the market carried much greater weight than only what they purchased/guaranteed directly.
Bottom line is that those "cowboy capitalists" included those at the GSEs who were playing the exact same game, significantly increasing risk and leverage exposure all along the way. " "Laissez-faire regulation by Washington" applied equally to the activities of the GSEs in becoming more permissive over time and letting them get in over their heads. ~10% to ~40% of the market depending on what and when you want to count (not even considering secondary effects of their presence in the market) concentrated within two primary entities is not "nibbling at the margins." Neither is the "only" ~12% of their portfolio deemed marginal when it comprises the point-source for the vast majority of their losses.
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
It really was Bush's fault
()
Date: February 10, 2015 11:07PM
American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just can't let those talking points go huh?
We serious people call those facts. We realize of course that there will always be those who are simply not able or not prepared to handle them.
> As evidenced by the problems and later massive losses
> on such which were becoming apparent even earlier on.
A little of that minor league "hindsight bias" I mentioned earlier? What a surprise. Some are just powerless to resist it, meaningless though it is.
> "Laissez-faire regulation by Washington" applied
> equally to the activities of the GSEs in becoming
> more permissive over time and letting them get in
> over their heads.
Except that Bush was actively trying to kill the GSE's and "privatize the mission" by handing more and more market share over to Wall Street. He tried to install a new czar in Treasury who could overrule GSE chief officers. He tried to place business-killing caps on GSE portfolio holdings. Finally he had his henchmen discover "accounting irregularities" that actually did force the GSE's to fight with at least one hand tied behind their backs. Meanwhile he was removing 12-to-1 leverage limits from the Wall Street Big Five that let them run leverage up to 30-to-1 and even 40-to-1. The idea that anything here applied "equally" is hack and blabber-puss level poppycock. You should be ashamed.
.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just can't let those talking points go huh?
We serious people call those facts. We realize of course that there will always be those who are simply not able or not prepared to handle them.
> As evidenced by the problems and later massive losses
> on such which were becoming apparent even earlier on.
A little of that minor league "hindsight bias" I mentioned earlier? What a surprise. Some are just powerless to resist it, meaningless though it is.
> "Laissez-faire regulation by Washington" applied
> equally to the activities of the GSEs in becoming
> more permissive over time and letting them get in
> over their heads.
Except that Bush was actively trying to kill the GSE's and "privatize the mission" by handing more and more market share over to Wall Street. He tried to install a new czar in Treasury who could overrule GSE chief officers. He tried to place business-killing caps on GSE portfolio holdings. Finally he had his henchmen discover "accounting irregularities" that actually did force the GSE's to fight with at least one hand tied behind their backs. Meanwhile he was removing 12-to-1 leverage limits from the Wall Street Big Five that let them run leverage up to 30-to-1 and even 40-to-1. The idea that anything here applied "equally" is hack and blabber-puss level poppycock. You should be ashamed.
.
Attachments:
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
Me Thinks That
()
Date: February 10, 2015 11:11PM
Very Few people bought the Post story that started this thread. The people made bad decisions and attempted to become Real Estate investors. Yet the Post played them off as Victums.
There are two people here who are very smart as far as economics , much more so then the majority here on this forum, much more so then the average American and both make good points but one has partisan feelings and thus has talking points that blame Bush when there was plenty of blame everywhere and greed on every side during the Hey Day of exploding upward home prices.
But you guys keep at it ..Its a History lesson as we pick out the good and bad actors as you tell it. And remember this thread shows up on Google searches and will for a long time so its good for people to be able to really see what was going on. And they will come to their own conclusions. Kona you take it easy old pal. Going to be real cold Friday, good time to hole up like me in a nice big warm house that I paid a song for after the real estate rocket blew . Going to Be Chock Full of Nuts Morning tommorow and feed the birds.
There are two people here who are very smart as far as economics , much more so then the majority here on this forum, much more so then the average American and both make good points but one has partisan feelings and thus has talking points that blame Bush when there was plenty of blame everywhere and greed on every side during the Hey Day of exploding upward home prices.
But you guys keep at it ..Its a History lesson as we pick out the good and bad actors as you tell it. And remember this thread shows up on Google searches and will for a long time so its good for people to be able to really see what was going on. And they will come to their own conclusions. Kona you take it easy old pal. Going to be real cold Friday, good time to hole up like me in a nice big warm house that I paid a song for after the real estate rocket blew . Going to Be Chock Full of Nuts Morning tommorow and feed the birds.
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
It really was Bush's fault
()
Date: February 10, 2015 11:26PM
Again, it's not like dealing cards at a bridge table. Sure, it sounds like it must be partisan to suggest that Bush was responsible for so many bad things. Surely, there must have been others with egg on their faces. But all those others turn out to be members and fellow-travelers of the Bush administration, or members or agents of the Wall Street cowboy capitalist cabal. It's entirely possible that this seemingly small and narrow group was responsible for the credit crisis and the Great Recession that followed, and all of the available evidence suggests that in fact, they were. It was not flippers, it was not greed, it was not housing markets. It was this small and very misguided group of people in New York and Washington.
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
American Dream Commitment
()
Date: February 11, 2015 12:51AM
It really was Bush's fault Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Dream Commitment Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just can't let those talking points go huh?
>
> We serious people call those facts. We realize of
> course that there will always be those who are
> simply not able or not prepared to handle them.
Once again, if you could put down the talking points for a moment then you'd understand that nobody disputed the few facts which were included along with your continued robotic recitation of party dogma.
The question was with respect to the GSEs also playing a significant role. To that end, it's good to see that you now finally at least appear to have completely given up on the idiotic Krugman-esque "the GSEs only bought conforming loans with substantial down payments" where you started from in the face of the facts with respect to the huge amounts of crap they held which led to large losses and bailouts.
>
> > As evidenced by the problems and later massive
> losses
> > on such which were becoming apparent even
> earlier on.
>
> A little of that minor league "hindsight bias" I
> mentioned earlier? What a surprise. Some are
> just powerless to resist it, meaningless though it
> is.
>
Yeah, +$490 billion worth of 'hindsight bias' in the form of crap held by the GSEs. Who could have known that when you encourage and provide a funnel for a small group of sweetheart brokers to issue and then buy up tons of high-LTV, no doc, negative amortizing, interest-only loans to borrowers with < 650 FICO scores that you'd have huge numbers of defaults if interest rates ever ticked up or the 'ever-upward' market stalled? Go figger... Never could have seen that coming.
> > "Laissez-faire regulation by Washington"
> applied
> > equally to the activities of the GSEs in
> becoming
> > more permissive over time and letting them get
> in
> > over their heads.
>
> Except that Bush was actively trying to kill the
> GSE's and "privatize the mission" by handing more
> and more market share over to Wall Street. He
> tried to install a new czar in Treasury who could
> overrule GSE chief officers. He tried to place
> business-killing caps on GSE portfolio holdings.
> Finally he had his henchmen discover "accounting
> irregularities" that actually did force the GSE's
> to fight with at least one hand tied behind their
> backs. Meanwhile he was removing 12-to-1 leverage
> limits from the Wall Street Big Five that let them
> run leverage up to 30-to-1 and even 40-to-1. The
> idea that anything here applied "equally" is hack
> and blabber-puss level poppycock. You should be
> ashamed.
> .
You mean "accounting irregularities" like the execs manipulating earnings so they'd hit their bonus targets?
Or irregularities like hiding risky parts of their portfolios to make the books look better going all the back to 1998?
Or the "significant departures from proper accounting practices" which permitted them to misrepresent risk and earnings requiring them to restate financials going back to 2003?
All of which and more was demonstrated to the satisfaction of career SEC prosecutors as well as to multiple courts in numerous independent lawsuits (which I don't think they were successful in defending against any of).
But "Bush" did not kill the GSEs. Most of the efforts to rein in the GSEs were by a few specific individuals in Congress and preceded Bush. And Bush was not the one who signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley or the CFMA of 2000. The GSEs thrived (until they didn't) under more permissive oversight and, in fact, were encouraged to pump the less qualified segments of the market in order to increase home ownership numbers.
-------------------------------------------------------
> American Dream Commitment Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just can't let those talking points go huh?
>
> We serious people call those facts. We realize of
> course that there will always be those who are
> simply not able or not prepared to handle them.
Once again, if you could put down the talking points for a moment then you'd understand that nobody disputed the few facts which were included along with your continued robotic recitation of party dogma.
The question was with respect to the GSEs also playing a significant role. To that end, it's good to see that you now finally at least appear to have completely given up on the idiotic Krugman-esque "the GSEs only bought conforming loans with substantial down payments" where you started from in the face of the facts with respect to the huge amounts of crap they held which led to large losses and bailouts.
>
> > As evidenced by the problems and later massive
> losses
> > on such which were becoming apparent even
> earlier on.
>
> A little of that minor league "hindsight bias" I
> mentioned earlier? What a surprise. Some are
> just powerless to resist it, meaningless though it
> is.
>
Yeah, +$490 billion worth of 'hindsight bias' in the form of crap held by the GSEs. Who could have known that when you encourage and provide a funnel for a small group of sweetheart brokers to issue and then buy up tons of high-LTV, no doc, negative amortizing, interest-only loans to borrowers with < 650 FICO scores that you'd have huge numbers of defaults if interest rates ever ticked up or the 'ever-upward' market stalled? Go figger... Never could have seen that coming.
> > "Laissez-faire regulation by Washington"
> applied
> > equally to the activities of the GSEs in
> becoming
> > more permissive over time and letting them get
> in
> > over their heads.
>
> Except that Bush was actively trying to kill the
> GSE's and "privatize the mission" by handing more
> and more market share over to Wall Street. He
> tried to install a new czar in Treasury who could
> overrule GSE chief officers. He tried to place
> business-killing caps on GSE portfolio holdings.
> Finally he had his henchmen discover "accounting
> irregularities" that actually did force the GSE's
> to fight with at least one hand tied behind their
> backs. Meanwhile he was removing 12-to-1 leverage
> limits from the Wall Street Big Five that let them
> run leverage up to 30-to-1 and even 40-to-1. The
> idea that anything here applied "equally" is hack
> and blabber-puss level poppycock. You should be
> ashamed.
> .
You mean "accounting irregularities" like the execs manipulating earnings so they'd hit their bonus targets?
Quote
The SEC also stated quite baldly a charge that had been only alluded to in the past; that "senior management manipulated the company's earnings in order to obtain bonuses they otherwise would not have received. Senior management of the company directed employees to record only $240 million of amortization expenses. By not recording the full amount of the calculated expenses, Fannie Mae understated its expenses and overstated its income by a pre-tax amount of $199 million. The company's management made two additional adjustments in the fourth quarter of 1998 that had the effect of offsetting nearly half the $240 million amortizations expense adjustment."
Or irregularities like hiding risky parts of their portfolios to make the books look better going all the back to 1998?
Or the "significant departures from proper accounting practices" which permitted them to misrepresent risk and earnings requiring them to restate financials going back to 2003?
All of which and more was demonstrated to the satisfaction of career SEC prosecutors as well as to multiple courts in numerous independent lawsuits (which I don't think they were successful in defending against any of).
But "Bush" did not kill the GSEs. Most of the efforts to rein in the GSEs were by a few specific individuals in Congress and preceded Bush. And Bush was not the one who signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley or the CFMA of 2000. The GSEs thrived (until they didn't) under more permissive oversight and, in fact, were encouraged to pump the less qualified segments of the market in order to increase home ownership numbers.
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
It really was Bush's fault
()
Date: February 13, 2015 04:38PM
American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again, if you could put down the talking
> points for a moment then you'd understand that
> nobody disputed the few facts which were included
> along with your continued robotic recitation of
> party dogma.
In other words you still have exactly nothing worthwhile to say. Which has been he case from the beginning. Just the same old smarmy distortion and babble.
> The question was with respect to the GSEs also
> playing a significant role.
And it was answered long ago. The GSE's played an insignificant role and that came late in the game. Simple facts to those who are actually aware of the pertinent history. This of course does not include you.
> To that end, it's good to see that you now finally at
> least appear to have completely given up on the idiotic
> Krugman-esque "the GSEs only bought conforming
> loans with substantial down payments" where you
> started from in the face of the facts with respect
> to the huge amounts of crap they held which led to
> large losses and bailouts.
Guffaw!!! You are now arguing against yourself. You have no counter to the facts and histories that I've posted. You can only resort to restating those, hoping to find some modified form that might make be more suitable to your out-gunned and goober purposes.
> Yeah, +$490 billion worth of 'hindsight bias' in
> the form of crap held by the GSEs. Who could have
> known that when you encourage and provide a funnel
> for a small group of sweetheart brokers to issue
> and then buy up tons of high-LTV, no doc, negative
> amortizing, interest-only loans to borrowers with
> < 650 FICO scores that you'd have huge numbers of
> defaults if interest rates ever ticked up or the
> 'ever-upward' market stalled? Go figger... Never
> could have seen that coming.
Incoherent word-tossing by some nonsense-babbling dimbulb. This is old, old, old, old ground you are trying to plow up here. The numbers you cite do not mean or imply what you want them to. All serious people know the actual numbers. You are not making any sort of actual point or headway here.
> You mean "accounting irregularities" like the
> execs manipulating earnings so they'd hit their
> bonus targets?
No. As any serious person would again have known, those were separate matters. You only reveal here more of the true scope of your historical misunderstanding.
> Or the "significant departures from proper
> accounting practices" which permitted them to
> misrepresent risk and earnings requiring them to
> restate financials going back to 2003?
More the latter in adapting to new standards promulgated by FASB. Everyone knew the changes were complicated and would be tricky to implement. So after review and approval by internal and external auditors, GSE books were submitted in draft form to HUD for their review and approval. Only once that approval was forthcoming were the books submitted in final form. Then Bushie stooges at the SEC and elsewhere decided to find grievous errors in the reporting. Odd that none of those had come to light earlier.
> And Bush was not the one who signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley
> or the CFMA of 2000.
LOL! A new low in goober-level stupidity. Neither GLB nor CFMA had anything to do with the credit crisis and resulting Great Recession. GLB modified Glass-Steagall to allow banking, brokerage, and insurance operations to be carried out under the same roof and with the same directors. Banks and brokerages had been operating jointly since the mid-1980's. The Travelers-CitiCorp merger was announced in early 1998 in blatant contravention of the law, and the Fed promptly gave them a waiver for it. GLB merely brought the law into conformance with what had already become standard practice.
CFMA meanwhile promised that Congress would not take steps to regulate long dark OTC derivatives markets, as Brooksley Born had thought to do in 1998. But that was nothing new -- it was merely an extension of what had been the status quo since the waning days of the Bush-41 administration. CFMA also for the first time allowed trading of certain types of futures contracts on markets in the US. No such markets existed here at the time, so trading simply continued on markets in Europe and the Middle East. By the time such markets did exist here, there was nobody left to use them.
> The GSEs thrived (until they didn't) under more
> permissive oversight and, in fact, were encouraged
> to pump the less qualified segments of the market
> in order to increase home ownership numbers.
The GSE's still thrive today. The Big Five Wall Street investment banks are by contrast ALL GONE, collapsed after choking on the massive volumes of market poison that THEY themselves -- not the GSE's -- had wantonly created.
So I don't know if you've impressed anyone else of any note here, but you've definitely not impressed me, As far as I can tell, you are just another overstuffed, unintelligent, uneducated, propaganda-reading stooge. Those are a-dime-a-dozen, and not worth a tenth of it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again, if you could put down the talking
> points for a moment then you'd understand that
> nobody disputed the few facts which were included
> along with your continued robotic recitation of
> party dogma.
In other words you still have exactly nothing worthwhile to say. Which has been he case from the beginning. Just the same old smarmy distortion and babble.
> The question was with respect to the GSEs also
> playing a significant role.
And it was answered long ago. The GSE's played an insignificant role and that came late in the game. Simple facts to those who are actually aware of the pertinent history. This of course does not include you.
> To that end, it's good to see that you now finally at
> least appear to have completely given up on the idiotic
> Krugman-esque "the GSEs only bought conforming
> loans with substantial down payments" where you
> started from in the face of the facts with respect
> to the huge amounts of crap they held which led to
> large losses and bailouts.
Guffaw!!! You are now arguing against yourself. You have no counter to the facts and histories that I've posted. You can only resort to restating those, hoping to find some modified form that might make be more suitable to your out-gunned and goober purposes.
> Yeah, +$490 billion worth of 'hindsight bias' in
> the form of crap held by the GSEs. Who could have
> known that when you encourage and provide a funnel
> for a small group of sweetheart brokers to issue
> and then buy up tons of high-LTV, no doc, negative
> amortizing, interest-only loans to borrowers with
> < 650 FICO scores that you'd have huge numbers of
> defaults if interest rates ever ticked up or the
> 'ever-upward' market stalled? Go figger... Never
> could have seen that coming.
Incoherent word-tossing by some nonsense-babbling dimbulb. This is old, old, old, old ground you are trying to plow up here. The numbers you cite do not mean or imply what you want them to. All serious people know the actual numbers. You are not making any sort of actual point or headway here.
> You mean "accounting irregularities" like the
> execs manipulating earnings so they'd hit their
> bonus targets?
No. As any serious person would again have known, those were separate matters. You only reveal here more of the true scope of your historical misunderstanding.
> Or the "significant departures from proper
> accounting practices" which permitted them to
> misrepresent risk and earnings requiring them to
> restate financials going back to 2003?
More the latter in adapting to new standards promulgated by FASB. Everyone knew the changes were complicated and would be tricky to implement. So after review and approval by internal and external auditors, GSE books were submitted in draft form to HUD for their review and approval. Only once that approval was forthcoming were the books submitted in final form. Then Bushie stooges at the SEC and elsewhere decided to find grievous errors in the reporting. Odd that none of those had come to light earlier.
> And Bush was not the one who signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley
> or the CFMA of 2000.
LOL! A new low in goober-level stupidity. Neither GLB nor CFMA had anything to do with the credit crisis and resulting Great Recession. GLB modified Glass-Steagall to allow banking, brokerage, and insurance operations to be carried out under the same roof and with the same directors. Banks and brokerages had been operating jointly since the mid-1980's. The Travelers-CitiCorp merger was announced in early 1998 in blatant contravention of the law, and the Fed promptly gave them a waiver for it. GLB merely brought the law into conformance with what had already become standard practice.
CFMA meanwhile promised that Congress would not take steps to regulate long dark OTC derivatives markets, as Brooksley Born had thought to do in 1998. But that was nothing new -- it was merely an extension of what had been the status quo since the waning days of the Bush-41 administration. CFMA also for the first time allowed trading of certain types of futures contracts on markets in the US. No such markets existed here at the time, so trading simply continued on markets in Europe and the Middle East. By the time such markets did exist here, there was nobody left to use them.
> The GSEs thrived (until they didn't) under more
> permissive oversight and, in fact, were encouraged
> to pump the less qualified segments of the market
> in order to increase home ownership numbers.
The GSE's still thrive today. The Big Five Wall Street investment banks are by contrast ALL GONE, collapsed after choking on the massive volumes of market poison that THEY themselves -- not the GSE's -- had wantonly created.
So I don't know if you've impressed anyone else of any note here, but you've definitely not impressed me, As far as I can tell, you are just another overstuffed, unintelligent, uneducated, propaganda-reading stooge. Those are a-dime-a-dozen, and not worth a tenth of it.
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
independent arbitrator
()
Date: February 13, 2015 04:53PM
OK. Wasted an hour of my life reading this BS.
As someone with no dog in this fight I have to say "It really was Bush's fault" has had her ass handed to her in this online debate. Not only has it been clearly shown she has made numerous errors of fact and judgment and has numerous facts wrong, she also relies on just about every tried and true illogical debating technique known to man (e.g.Straw Man, False Dichotomy, Moving The Goalposts, Ad Hominems, Red Herrings, Changing the Argument). And then for good measure resorts to blustering, bullying, insulting and foul language.
It's not even close and apparently she is the only one who doesn't know it.
As someone with no dog in this fight I have to say "It really was Bush's fault" has had her ass handed to her in this online debate. Not only has it been clearly shown she has made numerous errors of fact and judgment and has numerous facts wrong, she also relies on just about every tried and true illogical debating technique known to man (e.g.Straw Man, False Dichotomy, Moving The Goalposts, Ad Hominems, Red Herrings, Changing the Argument). And then for good measure resorts to blustering, bullying, insulting and foul language.
It's not even close and apparently she is the only one who doesn't know it.
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
It really was Bush's fault
()
Date: February 14, 2015 03:51PM
American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK. Wasted an hour of my life reading this BS.
>
> As someone with no dog in this fight I have to say
> "It really was Bush's fault" has had her ass
> handed to her in this online debate. Not only has
> it been clearly shown she has made numerous errors
> of fact and judgment and has numerous facts wrong,
> she also relies on just about every tried and true
> illogical debating technique known to man
> (e.g.Straw Man, False Dichotomy, Moving The
> Goalposts, Ad Hominems, Red Herrings, Changing the
> Argument). And then for good measure resorts to
> blustering, bullying, insulting and foul
> language.
>
> It's not even close and apparently she is the only
> one who doesn't know it.
LOL! What a spectacle of poor sportsmanship!
But there has been one other person who was following along here at least for a while, and from superficial observer status, the question of whom to believe could in fact arise. Now, I might be willing to describe my general living conditions and perhaps also some scenes outside my expansive windows, but I am not about to post or link to any sort of personally identifiable information on a place like FFXU. Linked to below instead however are some notes from a couple of other academic types who were looking into these same histories in advance of a St. Louis Fed conference in 2010. One of the authors is currently Director of Research for the Carlyle Group. The other is Chairman of the Finance Department at GWU. Take a gander through their paper and see whose side they tend to come down on...
https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK. Wasted an hour of my life reading this BS.
>
> As someone with no dog in this fight I have to say
> "It really was Bush's fault" has had her ass
> handed to her in this online debate. Not only has
> it been clearly shown she has made numerous errors
> of fact and judgment and has numerous facts wrong,
> she also relies on just about every tried and true
> illogical debating technique known to man
> (e.g.Straw Man, False Dichotomy, Moving The
> Goalposts, Ad Hominems, Red Herrings, Changing the
> Argument). And then for good measure resorts to
> blustering, bullying, insulting and foul
> language.
>
> It's not even close and apparently she is the only
> one who doesn't know it.
LOL! What a spectacle of poor sportsmanship!
But there has been one other person who was following along here at least for a while, and from superficial observer status, the question of whom to believe could in fact arise. Now, I might be willing to describe my general living conditions and perhaps also some scenes outside my expansive windows, but I am not about to post or link to any sort of personally identifiable information on a place like FFXU. Linked to below instead however are some notes from a couple of other academic types who were looking into these same histories in advance of a St. Louis Fed conference in 2010. One of the authors is currently Director of Research for the Carlyle Group. The other is Chairman of the Finance Department at GWU. Take a gander through their paper and see whose side they tend to come down on...
https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
Dane Bramage
()
Date: February 14, 2015 07:06PM
Greed caused the meltdown, enabled by Dems loosening underwriting so anyone could get a mortgage. CRA and Clinton rescinding Glass Steagall were huge factors.
-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”
-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
It really was Bush's fault
()
Date: February 15, 2015 12:25PM
Dane Bramage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greed caused the meltdown, enabled by Dems
> loosening underwriting so anyone could get a
> mortgage. CRA and Clinton rescinding Glass
> Steagall were huge factors.
It would be well to remember (as many do not) that there was never any public law, policy, rule, order, directive, or court decision requiring any lender to extend a single penny's worth of credit to any borrower who was not fully qualified for it.
The greed that was rampant in the run-up to the credit crisis and Great Recession came from Wall Street, and the enabling was done by Bush and his crony Republican regulators. Clinton, Carter, CRA, GLB, CFMA, the National Home Ownership Strategy, Andrew Cuomo, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Nancy Pelosi are all on the long list of people and things having had little to nothing to do with it. Mostly just nothing.
What you and others here have fallen for are claims from a deliberately manufactured alternate history that seeks to shift blame for the debacle and destruction of the Great Recession away from red-handed Republicans and onto Democrats instead -- especially the hated Clinton and Carter. Your CRA meme for instance was invented out of whole cloth by Thomas DiLorenzo of the infamous Mises Institute. His theory was first trotted out for testing at Free Republic. After receiving positive feedback and some tweaking and polishing, the tract was prominently published in the Washington Times. From there, it went on tour, playing with Cato sponsorship at the NY Post, and then at The National Review. From there of course, the Echo Chamber took over, pushing copy after copy after copy of the entirely phony story out into every nook and cranny of the internet. In the end, it's all nothing more than another episode of "Star Wars" -- cute and perhaps marketable to some audiences, but still fiction from top to bottom.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greed caused the meltdown, enabled by Dems
> loosening underwriting so anyone could get a
> mortgage. CRA and Clinton rescinding Glass
> Steagall were huge factors.
It would be well to remember (as many do not) that there was never any public law, policy, rule, order, directive, or court decision requiring any lender to extend a single penny's worth of credit to any borrower who was not fully qualified for it.
The greed that was rampant in the run-up to the credit crisis and Great Recession came from Wall Street, and the enabling was done by Bush and his crony Republican regulators. Clinton, Carter, CRA, GLB, CFMA, the National Home Ownership Strategy, Andrew Cuomo, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Nancy Pelosi are all on the long list of people and things having had little to nothing to do with it. Mostly just nothing.
What you and others here have fallen for are claims from a deliberately manufactured alternate history that seeks to shift blame for the debacle and destruction of the Great Recession away from red-handed Republicans and onto Democrats instead -- especially the hated Clinton and Carter. Your CRA meme for instance was invented out of whole cloth by Thomas DiLorenzo of the infamous Mises Institute. His theory was first trotted out for testing at Free Republic. After receiving positive feedback and some tweaking and polishing, the tract was prominently published in the Washington Times. From there, it went on tour, playing with Cato sponsorship at the NY Post, and then at The National Review. From there of course, the Echo Chamber took over, pushing copy after copy after copy of the entirely phony story out into every nook and cranny of the internet. In the end, it's all nothing more than another episode of "Star Wars" -- cute and perhaps marketable to some audiences, but still fiction from top to bottom.
Re: Families Suffer with Underwater Homes In Fairfax, P.Georges Co.
Posted by:
It really was Bush's fault
()
Date: February 19, 2015 10:12AM
American Dream Commitment Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As someone with no dog in this fight I have to say
> "It really was Bush's fault" has had her ass
> handed to her in this online debate. Not only has
> it been clearly shown she has made numerous errors
> of fact and judgment and has numerous facts wrong,
> she also relies on just about every tried and true
> illogical debating technique known to man
> (e.g.Straw Man, False Dichotomy, Moving The
> Goalposts, Ad Hominems, Red Herrings, Changing the
> Argument). And then for good measure resorts to
> blustering, bullying, insulting and foul
> language.
>
> It's not even close and apparently she is the only
> one who doesn't know it.
Dude, whom did you think you were actually going to fool? You got your pathetic little wind-up clock cleaned here, little boy. That's what happens to untrained and unintelligent wannabe dumbos who try to wade into the deep water with people who actually know what they are talking about. Hopefully, you will be able to learn a lesson from it all. To wit, either get smart yourself or shut your stooge-level and senselessly flapping trap when in the company of those who are plainly your betters.
-------------------------------------------------------
> As someone with no dog in this fight I have to say
> "It really was Bush's fault" has had her ass
> handed to her in this online debate. Not only has
> it been clearly shown she has made numerous errors
> of fact and judgment and has numerous facts wrong,
> she also relies on just about every tried and true
> illogical debating technique known to man
> (e.g.Straw Man, False Dichotomy, Moving The
> Goalposts, Ad Hominems, Red Herrings, Changing the
> Argument). And then for good measure resorts to
> blustering, bullying, insulting and foul
> language.
>
> It's not even close and apparently she is the only
> one who doesn't know it.
Dude, whom did you think you were actually going to fool? You got your pathetic little wind-up clock cleaned here, little boy. That's what happens to untrained and unintelligent wannabe dumbos who try to wade into the deep water with people who actually know what they are talking about. Hopefully, you will be able to learn a lesson from it all. To wit, either get smart yourself or shut your stooge-level and senselessly flapping trap when in the company of those who are plainly your betters.