Occupy Wall Street Sept 17 2011

[Boges]

Don't care.

Not paying court costs because of them.

Pissed them off big time. Got what I wanted.

Please address the REAL point:

Subprime were a bank scam, set up to fail.

Not in Canada

Oh BTW because they made you pay that insurance they don't end up holding the bag for your idiocy. One of the reason's why we didn't have to bail out our banks.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Boges

[GostHacked]

Complete nonsense. Sub-prime loans were created and pushed by the government to foster home ownership for lower income people. How'd that work out for you?

So the government tried to cover their screw ups by bailing out the banks they had forced to give bad mortgages? And you still blame the 99%?

[dre]

Complete nonsense. Sub-prime loans were created and pushed by the government to foster home ownership for lower income people. How'd that work out for you?

Complete nonsense. Sub-prime loans were created and pushed by the government to foster home ownership for lower income people. How'd that work out for you?

Sub prime loans have been around for thousands of years, and they are very much the product of the private banking system. And the government didnt push these loans on anyone. In fact organizations that were regulated by the government were not even allowed to make these loans.

Almost ALL of those subprime loans came from thrifts, trusts, and pure mortgage companies.

Theres a list of the big subprime lenders. Only 1 was a commercial bank thats subject to FDIC regs, or the CRA, etc. The rest were completely unregulated and free to loan to whoever they wanted, at whatever rate they wanted.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/assets/img/top25-listfull.jpg

U.S. and European investment banks invested enormous sums in subprime lending due to unceasing demand for high-yield, high-risk bonds backed by home mortgages. The banks made huge profits while their executives collected handsome bonuses until the bottom fell out of the real estate market.

Investment banks Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan & Co., and Citigroup Inc. both owned and financed subprime lenders. Others, like RBS Greenwich Capital Investments Corp. (part of the Royal Bank of Scotland), Swiss bank Credit Suisse First Boston, and Goldman Sachs & Co., were major financial backers of subprime lenders.

Who forced investment banks and private lenders to origionate dangerous mortgages, then bundle them into securities to be sold to global investors?

NOBODY AT ALL. The practice was popular because while the realestate bubble was forming it was very profitable.

Edited November 9, 2011 by dre

[dre]

So the government tried to cover their screw ups by bailing out the banks they had forced to give bad mortgages? And you still blame the 99%?

He has absolutely no idea what happened or who was to blame. Just spitting up the same long ago debunked talking points.

[bush_cheney2004]

He has absolutely no idea what happened or who was to blame. Just spitting up the same long ago debunked talking points.

"Blame" = nectar of victims (even when there is none)

[GostHacked]

He has absolutely no idea what happened or who was to blame. Just spitting up the same long ago debunked talking points.

I swear some of our members are nothing but troll-bots, or just bots themselves. Or one of those fake personalities the military says they are using online to influence ways of thinking. We could have them right here on MLW !!!

[Shady]

Sub prime loans have been around for thousands of years, and they are very much the product of the private banking system. And the government didnt push these loans on anyone. In fact organizations that were regulated by the government were not even allowed to make these loans.

Complete nonsense. It was the government, in particular Democrats that lowered lending standards to make these sub-prime loans more available to lower income people. That's a matter of FACT. Stop the lying already.

Who forced investment banks and private lenders to origionate dangerous mortgages, then bundle them into securities to be sold to global investors?

The government did. Ever heard of redlining? They also created an environment where private banks had to compete with government mortgage entities because they were taking more and more of there customers through these new lowered sub-prime loan standards.

The bundling into securites wasn't the problem. It was the mortgages themselves that was the problem. If the mortgages had been legitimate, the securities wouldn't have been a problem.

[GostHacked]

Complete nonsense. It was the government, in particular Democrats that lowered lending standards to make these sub-prime loans more available to lower income people. That's a matter of FACT. Stop the lying already.

And you still blame the 99% for it?

[dre]

Complete nonsense. It was the government, in particular Democrats that lowered lending standards to make these sub-prime loans more available to lower income people. That's a matter of FACT. Stop the lying already.

The government did. Ever heard of redlining? They also created an environment where private banks had to compete with government mortgage entities because they were taking more and more of there customers through these new lowered sub-prime loan standards.

The bundling into securites wasn't the problem. It was the mortgages themselves that was the problem. If the mortgages had been legitimate, the securities wouldn't have been a problem.

Once again... the companies doing all the subprime lending were not subject to any laws regarding redlining. The CRA quite simply did not apply to any of these companies. They were completely free to make loans to whoever they wanted, at what ever rates they chose.

The government did. Ever heard of redlining? They also created an environment where private banks had to compete with government mortgage entities because they were taking more and more of there customers through these new lowered sub-prime loan standards.

No... government mortgage entities were not allowed to make subprime loans. Although they did purchase the odd security that had a few of these loans in it.

The reason they made subprime loans is because it was profitable while the bubble was getting inflated.

The reality is that banks that were subject to FDIC regs, and the CRA (commercial banks) basically stayed out of the subprime market. They arent allowed to make these loans.

According to the federal reserve board...

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the CRA.

The fact the vast majority of sub prime lending was done by private companies that were not subject to either the CRA, or ANY FDIC regulation.

But go ahead. Show me the legislation that forced countrywide to make subprime loans. You wont because you cant. Such a regulation simply does not exist and Iv been challenging people that make the dumb, and long-ago debunked claims that you have, and never have I gotten a single thing besides crickets.

They also created an environment where private banks had to compete with government mortgage entities because they were taking more and more of there customers through these new lowered sub-prime loan standards

This statement is so ignorant its basically laughable. But go ahead. Tell me who these government mortgage lenders are.

[jacee]

Not in Canada

Oh BTW because they made you pay that insurance they don't end up holding the bag for your idiocy. One of the reason's why we didn't have to bail out our banks.

I hope I don't have to keep explaining this:

I HAD insurance.

They can't make you take THEIR insurance on top.

It was a brief circumstance for me.

But the reason I raised it is the issue of the speed and rigidity of these forclosures ... with their insurance.

Who profited?

[Shady]

Once again... the companies doing all the subprime lending were not subject to any laws regarding redlining. The CRA quite simply did not apply to any of these companies. They were completely free to make loans to whoever they wanted, at what ever rates they chose.

Wrong.

Lawyers and bank consultants say regulators and the Obama Administration are scrutinizing financial institutions for a practice that last drew attention before the rise of subprime lending: redlining

A Renewed Crackdown on Redlining

No... government mortgage entities were not allowed to make subprime loans. Although they did purchase the odd security that had a few of these loans in it.

LOL, the odd security eh?

By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.

Link

The fact the vast majority of sub prime lending was done by private companies that were not subject to either the CRA, or ANY FDIC regulation.

The fact is, that these banks were competing with government entities Freddie and Fannie, who relaxed mortgage underwriting standards for their customers. They were also subject to anti-discrimination and anti-redlining crackdowns from the federal government, if lending to disadvantaged areas, and lower income borrowers wasn't practiced.

But go ahead. Show me the legislation that forced countrywide to make subprime loans.

Ok.

Fed Stops Bank Merger; Cites Lending Concerns

In a move showing banking regulators' increased emphasis on ending loan discrimination, the Federal Reserve Board has, for the first time, blocked a large bank merger because of concern over possible bias against minority groups in mortgage lending.

By a 3-to-3 vote, with one abstention, the Fed declined to approve the Shawmut National Corporation's acquisition of the New Dartmouth Bank of Manchester, N.H., because of concern that Shawmut, based in Hartford, may not have complied with fair-lending laws.

NYT

Now get the hell outta this thread. I'm tired of educating your ignorant ass.

[Shady]

Anyways, back to the degenerates of OWS...

[dre]

What a suprise. Crickets again? You cant find any government act or law that forced all those subprime lenders to do ANYTHING can you? Thats because there simply isnt one.

They were also subject to anti-discrimination and anti-redlining crackdowns from the federal government, if lending to disadvantaged areas, and lower income borrowers wasn't practiced.

No these groups were not subject to ANY of those regulations or crackdowns. You dont even understand what kind of businesses were making subprime loans, or who is subject to any of these regulations.

The fact is, that these banks were competing with government entities Freddie and Fannie, who relaxed mortgage underwriting standards for their customers.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

Show me the crackdowns on the big subprime lenders Crickets again huh?

The reality is these companies made a mountain of money origionating these loans and thats exactly why they did it. Nobody has to force a private business to try to make money, and while the bubble was being inflated they made a fortune.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

FACT: Almost none of the top 25 sub prime lenders was subject to either the CRA, or FDIC regulations. They were completely free to set their own policy.

The fact is, that these banks were competing with government entities Freddie and Fannie, who relaxed mortgage underwriting standards for their customers.

And wow... one of your dumbest statements yet. Fanny and Freddie do not compete with private lenders Fanny and Freddie are not even lenders. They are underwriters and they actually work WITH private lenders. Theres no competition between them at all.

Althought... that statement wasnt QUITE as stupid as your "Government invented sub prime lending (a practice thats been around for thousands of years) gem... that you seem to have abandoned.

And the reality is that in the years before the crisis Fannie and Freddy were rapidly REDUCING their subprime inventory, while the private sector was rapidly increasing it.

Now get the hell outta this thread. I'm tired of educating your ignorant ass.

This from the forum clown, who apparently doesnt know what a mortgage is, thinks that subprime lenders like New Century were bound by the CRA, and thinks that Fanny and Freddy are mortgage lenders that compete with the private sector.

Edited November 10, 2011 by dre

[jacee]

In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages ...

... and then the foreclosures were carried out, swiftly with no renegotiation.

[CPCFTW]

In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages ...

... and then the foreclosures were carried out, swiftly with no renegotiation.

What's your point? Everything is securitized. Credit card debt and auto loans are securitized, if you think it's a big conspiracy then go short the companies holding credit card and auto loan assets. Soon you will also be the 1%!

[jacee]

What's your point? Everything is securitized. Credit card debt and auto loans are securitized, if you think it's a big conspiracy then go short the companies holding credit card and auto loan assets. Soon you will also be the 1%!

My point was that once the mortgages were repackaged, resold and 'hedged' ... they were foreclosed swiftly and with no renegotiation, because they were worth more money if they failed ... so they made sure they failed.

[Bonam]

My point was that once the mortgages were repackaged, resold and 'hedged' ... they were foreclosed swiftly and with no renegotiation, because they were worth more money if they failed ... so they made sure they failed.

They don't have an obligation to negotiate with someone who can't hold up their end of the bargain. They can negotiate, if they want and are feeling nice or if it's to their advantage. If it's not, why negotiate?

[CPCFTW]

My point was that once the mortgages were repackaged, resold and 'hedged' ... they were foreclosed swiftly and with no renegotiation, because they were worth more money if they failed ... so they made sure they failed.

That's your theory. In actuality nothing of the sort happened. You seem obsessed with the notion that the millions of employees in finance/banking all colluded to screw you and 99% of other people and transfer wealth to evil "predators" maniacally cackling at us all.

[blueblood]

That's your theory. In actuality nothing of the sort happened. You seem obsessed with the notion that the millions of employees in finance/banking all colluded to screw you and 99% of other people and transfer wealth to evil "predators" maniacally cackling at us all.

When you get foreclosed on and make bad decisions, typically people like to play the blame game.

[jacee]

Look at the data again ...

http://www.munknee.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-of-americas-earners-youre-pretty-much-screwed.jpg

They're WAY UP THERE,

And 99% of us are hugging zero.

Edited November 10, 2011 by jacee

[TimG]

Look at the data again ...

I don't see why the derivative of an obscur stat is interesting.

[CPCFTW]

Look at the data again ...

http://www.munknee.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-of-americas-earners-youre-pretty-much-screwed.jpg

They're WAY UP THERE,

And 99% of us are hugging zero.

Do you even know what you are looking at?

"% change in distributions of $100 per person since 1979"

Oooooh a scary looking chart. How about you go ahead and explain the Y-axis now if you're going to base your argument on this chart?

Now when you figure that out, here's a thought: What if there are more $100s to go around now?

For example,

at time = 0, 2 people in the world and $200 to go around, and each person had $100.

at time = 1, 2 people in the world and $1000 to go around, one person has $300 and the other person has $700.

How does the chart look? Top 50% percentile has gone from 50% of society's wealth to 70%. Bottom 50% percentile has gone from 50% of society's wealth to 30%. Bottom 50% is getting screwed? Nope, they have tripled their networth.

Another meaningless chart courtesy of Jacee.

In the real world, the growth in wealth is being distributed to harder working and more productive (in terms of cost) labour in developing nations and smarter/harder working wealthy people in developed nations. The middle/lower class (and I hesitate to use these terms because people are constantly moving between "classes") of developed nations is being screwed but only because it refuses to adapt to a globalized economy.

The "1%" is comprised of people that began in a variety of classes (yes even the lower class) and have best adapted to their economic situation.

Edited November 10, 2011 by CPCFTW

[jacee]

Do you even know what you are looking at?

"% change in distributions of $100 per person since 1979"

Oooooh a scary looking chart. How about you go ahead and explain the Y-axis now if you're going to base your argument on this chart?

It's really cool how everyone's $100 redistributed themselves so much in the favour of the wealthiest1%.

Now when you figure that out, here's a thought: What if there are more $100s to go around now?

For example,

at time = 0, 2 people in the world and $200 to go around, and each person had $100.

at time = 1, 2 people in the world and $1000 to go around, one person has $300 one $700.

How does the chart look? Top 50% percentile has gone from 50% of society's wealth to 70%. Bottom 50% percentile has gone from 50% of society's wealth to 30%. Bottom 50% is getting screwed? Nope, they have tripled their networth.

Another meaningless chart courtesy of Jacee.

Are we looking at the same chart?

if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-of-americas-earners-youre-pretty-much-screwed

In the real world, the growth in wealth is being distributed to harder working and more productive (in terms of cost) labour in developing nations and smarter/harder working wealthy people in developed nations. The middle/lower class (and I hesitate to use these terms because people are constantly moving between "classes") of developed nations is being screwed but only because it refuses to adapt to a globalized economy.

The "1%" is comprised of people that began in a variety of classes (yes even the lower class) and have best adapted to their economic situation.

kudos to them.

Really.

But the continuing concentration is unsustainable.

Gnight

Edited November 10, 2011 by jacee

[Shady]

What a suprise. Crickets again?

The only crickets are in your head. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the laws referred to by The New York Times?

You cant find any government act or law that forced all those subprime lenders to do ANYTHING can you? Thats because there simply isnt one.

Once again, why do you refuse to acknowledge the laws referred to by The New York Times?

No these groups were not subject to ANY of those regulations or crackdowns.

Once again, why do you refuse to acknowledge the laws referred to by The New York Times?

[punked]

The only crickets are in your head. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the laws referred to by The New York Times?

Once again, why do you refuse to acknowledge the laws referred to by The New York Times?

Once again, why do you refuse to acknowledge the laws referred to by The New York Times?

Shady I just want to point out I went back to the message where you "cite" what you are referring to now this New York Times article. It has nothing to do with your claims on sub prime mortgages. Nothing at all. Also where you "cite" about fannie and freddy having half all the sub prime loans, if you would be so kind to read the sentence right after what you took from the wiki article you would see they didn't own those loans THE BANKS own them and Fannie and Freddie was loaning to the banks who were making the bad loans.

Seriously it is like you tried to find articles then when you could decided if you citing articles no one would read them. They don't say what you claim at all.