Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, July 08, 2009

U.S. mortgage fraud reports jumped 36 percent last year as desperate homeowners and industry professionals tried to maintain their standard of living from the boom years, the FBI said on Tuesday. Suspicious activity reports rose to 63,000 in fiscal year 2008 from 46,000 the year before. California and Florida had the highest numbers of suspicious reports.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

nanc

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

How can people be doing more mortgage fraud? You have to be God to get a loan these days.

How is this different than mortgage default? How is fraud creaping in?

fraud is when banks willingly continue to lend to people it knows cannot repay the loans, imhb. people cannot tell themselves NO!

It's a free market. Take away all the restrictions. If people want to borrow themselves into oblivion, let 'em. The quicker they're out in the streets, the better off this country will be. Let 'em immigrate to Canada.

Thank you nanc. The banks know they will get their money back from the US tax payer through our fine politicians. Ain't the bank bail-outs great?

"You have to be God to get a loan these days."

Not if you're tight with Barney Frank or Chris Dodd.

sniper - i've been trying to drive this point home to my family for a number of years - if we don't have the cash for it, we don't need it. we have friends and family who've used their homes as lines of credit year after year to take vacations, buy pleasure crafts and rv's - they won't be going ANYWHERE, but to work for a very long time - it's never too late to rein yourself in - you just may have to do without a few luxuries.

"You have to be God to get a loan these days."

No you don't.

Unless you never had any business getting a loan in the first place.

"..fraud when banks willingly continue to lend to people it knows cannot repay the loans,..."

With a lot of government coercion. Read...

"When the CRA was created during the Carter administration, the administration also funded with tax dollars numerous "community groups" that have helped the Fed, the Comptroller of the
Currency, and other federal regulatory agencies to enforce the act. Under the CRA, if a bank wants to make virtually any change in its business operations merging, opening up a new branch, getting into a new line of business it must first prove to regulators that it has made "enough" loans to the government's preferred borrowers. The (partially) tax-funded "community groups" like ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) can file petitions with regulators that stop the bank's activities in their tracks, perhaps defeating them altogether. The banks routinely buy off ACORN and other "community groups" by giving them millions of dollars as well as promising to make even more dubious loans."

The full article:

mises.org

This is the law that did the deed to us.

1977 Community Reinvestment Act seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from different areas or neighborhoods,[6][7][8] and mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by the relevant banking regulatory agencies to determine if the institution has met the credit needs of its entire community in a manner consistent with safe and sound operations.[2] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. The law emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[2][9] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[5][10]

NANC,

I live my life on a cash only basis, if I don't have the cash I don't buy it. Sadly I am still one of those people that goes no where but work. Being cash only does not solve all your problems unless you have a very large pile of cash.

#10 | Posted by Sniper

That is the foundation of this economic meltdown.

Thanks, Billionaire Greenspan, you're almost as good as Browny. But you got your's and that's all that really matters.

The law emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.

Seems like a CYA law that the banks could use to do exactly what they did despite what the law says.

They gave out bad loans to people who didn't deserve them and unfortunately had this law to point to as a reason.

You can thank Ronnie Raygun and the Garn-St. Germaine Depository Institutions act for the current state of the economy.

The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry whose deposits were federally insured a license to gamble with taxpayers' money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.

But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.

Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.

We weren't always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans saved almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was up to 119 percent.

All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren't putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.

Now, the proximate causes of today's economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.

But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.

These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation took on too much risk with too little capital.

There's plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we're in were Reagan and his circle of advisers men who forgot the lessons of America's last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.


www.nytimes.com

Seems like a CYA law that the banks could use to do exactly what they did despite what the law says.

They gave out bad loans to people who didn't deserve them and unfortunately had this law to point to as a reason.

#14 | Posted by jpw

How does a bank make money making bad loans? That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.Dan logic at its best.

#11 | Posted by TaoWarrior

it's a great way to live if you're trying to get on your feet - the burden of loans is stifling - living within your means is most important in this day and age. for instance, our two teens get an allowance and put ten percent into a charity jar and it seemed their portion was gone halfway through the next week - i tired of it after several months and sat them down and told them i was putting 20% of their allowance into a savings jar and when we'd be able to do something as a family or they needed extra, they could draw on it - so far they both have good balances. we don't have piles of cash - we are property poor, but will soon have a couple pieces paid off. we know all too well the struggle of getting out of debt.

#15 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2009-07-08 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag: channeling danni

How does a bank make money making bad loans? That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.Dan logic at its best.

Or you're just an idiot.

The banks made bad loans/mortgages. They then bundled these loans/mortgages together and sold them (these are what are referred to as "toxic assets"). Eventually they concentrated in a few large institutions (Freddie and Fanny mostly) and once the bad loans started defaulting, those holders got caught without a chair while the others were laughing all the way to the bank with the money they made from selling those bad assets.

If any of this is incorrect, by all means correct it. But this is my understanding of why the housing bust was as bad as it was.

#18 | Posted by nanc at 2009-07-08 12:13 PM | Reply | Drips like a Polish faucet at the thought of licking Beirut Bonzo's taint

#20 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2009-07-08 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:why oh why must i continue to project these thoughts from my childhood onto nanc?!?

#21 | Posted by nanc at 2009-07-08 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Cancervatard Crone

#21 | Posted by nanc at 2009-07-08 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:libtard loser!

#23 | Posted by nanc at 2009-07-08 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag; Shit out any more retards lately?

oops! got caught up in the moment:

#22 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2009-07-08 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:libtard loser!

#24 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2009-07-08 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:that was MY face in your toilet!

25 | Posted by nanc at 2009-07-08 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag: How's shortbus doing?

CA leading the pack for fraud?

No surpise, probably 99% of all criminals locked up in prison are democrats.

What a shock.

Kuma

#27 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2009-07-08 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:i want to sit in the front seat (stomping tiny foot)!!!

Commercial foreclosures hasn't even hit yet. Wait till that happens. They are typically 5 or 10 year loans, and with the massive amount of vacancies, trouble is on its way. When this shoe drops, real fraud will be exposed.

There is fraud in residential too, and not just by banks. Greedy brokers placing loans without any care on whether they default. Greedy investors who mark down that they are "owner-occupied" places when they really aren't. This stuff will shake out.

Or you're just an idiot.

The banks made bad loans/mortgages. They then bundled these loans/mortgages together and sold them (these are what are referred to as "toxic assets").

#19 | Posted by jpw

Talk about idiot, it fits you. Some lending group ends up buying the bad paper. Read BAD PAPER!!!! Is that smart???

"Some lending group ends up buying the bad paper. Read BAD PAPER!!!! Is that smart???"

Talk to Moody's and S&P. You'll find some world-class fraud. Bad paper got good ratings.

You make the call.

Talk to Moody's and S&P. You'll find some world-class fraud. Bad paper got good ratings.

Yep. Creative financing (Arms, interest-only, etc) had a very short historical record, yet were given ratings on par with 30-year fixed mortgages.

However, the genesis of all of this was the Community Reinvestment Act. This was the foundation that ALL of the other problems was built.

#32 | Posted by Sniper

Actually, JPW had it about right.

That's precisely what happened.

Snippy and the bozo-brigade conveniently forget that the reasons the banks and fraudsters could make all those worthless loans was that the GOPiggies deregulated the hell out of everything for 20 years and basically gave the keys to the banks (and the taxpayers' wallets) to the very theives that robbed us blind. They prefer to blame poor people the were too stupid to realize they were being lied to by mortgage brokers and bankers.

The real big money fraud was and has always been in commercial property loans. Not many poor people play at that end of the pool. Look to your local country club for those theives.

Yep. Creative financing (Arms, interest-only, etc) had a very short historical record, yet were given ratings on par with 30-year fixed mortgages.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ

I guess that is the fraud part of it. The buyer has no responsibility to check what he is buying? Still seems like the lenders were either very stupid or they were promised payment by someone.

"However, the genesis of all of this was the Community Reinvestment Act. This was the foundation that ALL of the other problems was built. "

The CRA was passed in 1977. If you're correct, why didn't things melt down a decade or two ago? And btw...what percentage of home loans were CRA?

And do you really think it was the CRA, and not leveraging 100-1, and the ability to make a bad loan, and then bet multiple times the loan would default? Seriously?!?

"The buyer has no responsibility to check what he is buying?"

That what the ratings companies are trusted to do. Otherwise, what you're suggesting is impossible.

The CRA was the engine that made it all possible, Danforth.

It wasn't pushed until a study came out in the early '90's that "proved" that lending institutions were discriminating against minorities based solely upon the approval rates for blacks, whites and hispanics with the same level of income.

Of course, politicians and the media ignored a few salient facts:

1. Income is FAR from the only criteria a lending institution uses when determining whether or not to approve a loan.

2. Both politicians and the media completely ignored another racial demographic contained in the report: Asians - who just so happened to have a higher approval rate than whites.

3. The default rates for the various groups were about the same - which further dispels the notion of discrimination. Blacks and Hispanics should have had lower default rates than whites, if they were being held to a higher standard.

It was this study that caused the politicians to begin wielding the CRA sword. They pressured banks to lower their lending standards. They'd hold up approval for mergers, etc. unless their demands were met. Lending institutions were being sued constantly based solely upon 'statistical discrimination' even when not a single complain was ever lodged by an individual. This of course put the burden of proof on the defendant, instead of the other way around.

This was the foundation for everything else that went wrong.

"It was this study that caused the politicians to begin wielding the CRA sword. They pressured banks to lower their lending standards"

If all banks succumbed to this "pressure", you'd have a point. The fact that some banks avoided the sub-prime mess like the plague tells me it was more about greed and market share.

"This was the foundation for everything else that went wrong."

If that's your belief, I would respectfully submit you don't know the first thing about leveraging.

If all banks succumbed to this "pressure", you'd have a point.

I have a point regardless. Not all banks were in the process of trying to merge, or trying to open up new branches only to have their aspirations held in check by the government unless they increased their ratio of loans to minorities. Greed certainly played a role as well, but the number of banks dropping their lending standards would have been far fewer were it not for government intervention in lending. The number of toxic assets would have been far fewer. The 'flipping' of houses in an aritificially-created market would have been reduced as well if credit were tougher to obtain. The fact that these loans were over-rated AND were packaged with other investment vehicles, I belive the term is CBO, making the entire CBO toxic, only compounded the problem.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ

Thankfully you did little or no research on this. Sadly, loans to minorities and lower or lower-middle class families have suffered rather low foreclosure rates compared to middle and upper middle class. So...government intervention had nothing to do with it on that end.

Deregulation on the other hand....Government deregulation was the root cause. It wasn't a matter of more government but less government that was the problem.

Sadly, loans to minorities and lower or lower-middle class families have suffered rather low foreclosure rates compared to middle and upper middle class

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Minorities had/have comparable foreclosure rates with whites in comparable income brackets.

Government deregulation was the root cause.

Point to a regulation that was eliminated and then draw cause and effect to a drop in lending standards. Otherwise you are simply stating a useless plattitude.

Thank you nanc. The banks know they will get their money back from the US tax payer through our fine politicians. Ain't the bank bail-outs great?

#5 | Posted by Sniper

Why are all the NOPers whining about the bank bailouts? Here's the two step argument to prove their idiots.

#1: No Bank Bail out, no banks. LONG PROTRACTED recession/depression because credit goes from little to none and replacement banks take years to replace the current ones (Maybe a decade considering lack of free flow capital).

#2: The Bank Bailouts are not Bailouts but loans (for the most part). Loans with interest. And like in the 30's, the Feds will get paid back with a tidy profit. Winners all around. Especially considering the Feds get first take in bankruptcy to cover losses so they basically never lose money.

"Not all banks were in the process of trying to merge, or trying to open up new branches only to have their aspirations held in check by the government unless they increased their ratio of loans to minorities."

What are you talking about? The "government" was run by the Republicans.

"the number of banks dropping their lending standards would have been far fewer were it not for government intervention in lending."

Lenders have been able to lend to the non-creditworthy for centuries. They also kept with a sensible leverage range of around 9-1. Only recently did all that change, and the CRA had nothing to do with it.

"The fact that these loans were over-rated AND were packaged with other investment vehicles, I belive the term is CBO, making the entire CBO toxic, only compounded the problem."

And the problem was the compounding, not the original mess. Look at the % of defaulted loans. Look at the CRA % among those (iirc, the CRA default ratio is lower than the average). It's a percentage of a percentage. That amount couldn't have bought down the financial system. But leverage that amount out at ludicrous numbers -- not the usual bankers' 9-to-1, but 30-1, 50-1, or 100-1, and hopefully you'll see the problem wasn't the seed, it was the mushroom.

Add to that the fact the rating companies got junk, and rated them aces. Something is rotten at this link of the chain as well.

The Bank Bailouts are not Bailouts but loans (for the most part). Loans with interest. And like in the 30's, the Feds will get paid back with a tidy profit. Winners all around.

Your assumption only works if the banks are able to repay these "loans".

GM received a "loan" too, now they are facing bankruptcy. How much of a profit did the governmnent turn on that "loan"?

What are you talking about? The "government" was run by the Republicans.

I am not giving the GOP a pass. Kit Bond (R) was every bit as fervent on this as was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Add to that the fact the rating companies got junk, and rated them aces. Something is rotten at this link of the chain as well.

I agree - this was a huge problem as well.

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.

The Gramm bill encouraged lending during the strong housing market but has put banks, investment houses and insurance companies in peril since the housing bust which started two years ago. The measure allowed those lending money to sell off those loan portfolios to other companies, thus disconnecting the lending risk.

How about that one Jeff J?

"I am not giving the GOP a pass. Kit Bond (R) was every bit as fervent on this as was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd."

But Kit Bond (R) was a member of the party who chaired every committee and set every agenda. You know, the party with the power to do something. Dodd & Frank were minority members of a Republican-controlled committee, power somewhat south of a fart in a windstorm.

"I agree - (Mis-rating) was a huge problem as well."

NO...it IS a huge problem. No one has swung for this, yet.

Where are the hearings?

Danforth,

This is a good read on this subject:

www.nytimes.com

This article was written in 1999.

Tao,

I just linked an article on that very issue.

Add to that the fact the rating companies got junk, and rated them aces. Something is rotten at this link of the chain as well.

I agree - this was a huge problem as well.

Did the buyers of these so called junk loans have a gun to their head? Where those the only Investment Vehicles available? Do they not have their own responsibility to do their own due dilligence? They were greedy and lazy and got what they deserved?

I saw that.

As an intependant it gives me great joy to see that a republican house passed it while a democrat president approved it.

So which party is to blame, looks like that would be both of them!

Deregulation on the other hand....Government deregulation was the root cause. It wasn't a matter of more government but less government that was the problem.

#43 | Posted by Sycophant

Will one of you smart people explain to me how making bad loans and then someone else buying them after they have been packaged is a way to make money? I still insist that someone was promised to be made whole from the whole deal. What was in it for the ratings companies? None of it makes any sense at all.

Pleas don't throw all your slick terms about leverage and repackage at me. Just explain how it all makes good business sense. In plain english please.

Sniper,

Thats just it. It NEVER did make any good business sense but some people were making money hand over fist so others didn't bother trying to see how it all worked they just jumped on the bandwagon.

"Did the buyers of these so called junk loans have a gun to their head"

If they bought crap believing it was prime because of fraudulent ratings, it's pretty damn close.

"Where (sic) those the only Investment Vehicles available?"

Of course not. But they were out there among the choices that were properly rated. Therein lies the problem.

"Do they not have their own responsibility to do their own due dilligence?"

No one could possibly do the due diligence on a bundle of hundreds of loans. (Think industrial buyers, like pension plans.) That's what the rating companies are supposed to do. And if they're in cahoots with the lenders, it's big trouble.

"What was in it for the ratings companies?"

Future business.

"Where are the hearings?"

LOL. Look how much money Congress gets from the mortgage industry and you'll have your answer.

We all know that which baseball players took steroids is far more important than who is committing mortgage and securities fraud.

No one could possibly do the due diligence on a bundle of hundreds of loans.

Oh really? Tell us how they are rated and priced? Do you even know the criteria that makes up the number? Are you aware there is a spreadsheet detailing the every loan in the pool? Such as credit score, fixed or adjustable, pre-pays etc. Not to mention access to any individual loan file itself. Provide a link proving these buyers did not have everything before making the decision to buy. Regardless of your assumption the ratings companies and Sellers were in it together, the buyers didn't have to purchase these toxic pools.

Seeing as most believe this was all one big scam and all parties were in cahoots, how many arrests and convictions have there been? Seems like it is a no brainer. Hell these same players were rewarded with stimulous money. Why is that?

#1: No Bank Bail out, no banks. LONG PROTRACTED recession/depression because credit goes from little to none and replacement banks take years to replace the current ones (Maybe a decade considering lack of free flow capital).

This is pure unmitigated bullshit. There were plenty of banks that did not take part in the collapse. They would work overtime to acquire all the assets of those who did and we would all move forward.

A decade to buy up these assets...please. More like 90-120 days.

"Oh really? Tell us how they are rated "

By the Moody's of the world. You can't possibly suggest that every pension manager investigate every property covered by every loan.

"Are you aware there is a spreadsheet detailing the every loan in the pool?"

Yes. Now..are you going to believe that spreadsheet, or are you going to do due diligence?

"the buyers didn't have to purchase these toxic pools."

But you can't deny the buyers rely on the ratings companies. And common sense says the assets were more toxic than the ratings.

Yes. Now..are you going to believe that spreadsheet, or are you going to do due diligence?

Had they done the due dilligence, they wouldn't have believed the spreadsheet. They also could have negotiated a lower price had they done their due dilligence. Or of course they could have chosen NOT to buy the pool. But that doesn't fit into your argument the buyers weren't greedy and tried to make a quick buck. Instead you want everyone to believe it was 100% the fault of those involved with funding, packaging and selling the bulk pools.

Instead you want everyone to believe it was 100% the fault of those involved with funding, packaging and selling the bulk pools.
#66 | Posted by crispee_oc

I certainly weight the blame in that direction.

"Had they done the due dilligence, they wouldn't have believed the spreadsheet."

Are you seriously suggesting the pension manager physically inspect every property on every loan in a bundle of a thousand loans?

"...that doesn't fit into your argument the buyers weren't greedy and tried to make a quick buck"

Whoa...wanting to profit is supposed to be admirable. It's all fine & legal, whereas if there was fraud in the repackaging, laws were broken. There's a big difference.

Instead you want everyone to believe it was 100% the fault of those involved with funding, packaging and selling the bulk pools.
#66 | Posted by crispee_oc

I certainly weight the blame in that direction.

Who do you blame if you buy a stock to make a quick buck and it fails? Your Broker? The companies that guaranteed it was a good investment? The outside services who rated the stocks? Keeping in mind you have information available that either backs it up or proves otherwise. Do you not share some of the blame for not doing your own homework?

As an intependant it gives me great joy to see that a republican house passed it while a democrat president approved it.

So which party is to blame, looks like that would be both of them!

#55 | Posted by TaoWarrior

That is correct.

The Republicans tried on a couple of occasions to address this, but couldn't even get their proposals out of committee, as Danforth correctly points out. In 2006, the Dems regained control of Congress and of course did nothing about this.

Barney Frank, even now, is clamoring for more of the same.

Idiots accross the board.

Crispee,

The problem was that the ratings companies grossly over-rated these investment vehicles.

Investment companies assess risk based upon the ratings given by the likes of S&P.

However, you do raise a fair point. Plenty of banks saw the inherent problem in these mortgages without the input of S&P. You would think that would have raised a red flag to those packaging this bad paper.

"Who do you blame if you buy a stock to make a quick buck and it fails?"

I just took issue with your %100 responsibility claim in #66, because the bundles were packaged precisely to obscure the facts you point to. That's why I go higher than 50% fault on the part of the banks/ratings companies.

#31 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2009-07-08 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:WHERE'S MAH SUPPUH???

"Had they done the due dilligence, they wouldn't have believed the spreadsheet."

Are you seriously suggesting the pension manager physically inspect every property on every loan in a bundle of a thousand loans?

Yeah danforth. They should take a picture of every structure in the pool. Maybe you need to understand due dilligence.

Investopedia Says:
1. Offers to purchase an asset are usually dependent on the results of due diligence analysis. This includes reviewing all financial records plus anything else deemed material to the sale. Sellers could also perform a due diligence analysis on the buyer. Items that may be considered are the buyer's ability to purchase, as well as other items that would affect the purchased entity or the seller after the sale has been completed.

2. Due diligence is essentially a way of preventing unnecessary harm to either party involved in a transaction.

Sniper,

Thats just it. It NEVER did make any good business sense but some people were making money hand over fist so others didn't bother trying to see how it all worked they just jumped on the bandwagon.

#57 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2009-07-08 01:53 PM | Reply |

BUT... it did make sense to every individual involved. Because everyone involved got a cut. The homebuyer was practically given money to buy a house. Everyone that dealt with that, got a cut. The bank that sold the loan to somebody else got a cut. The guy that repackaged and resold it as a security got a cut. The guy that bought said security got a cut, the ratings agencies got a cut. Governments left and right were getting a cut. EVERYBODY WAS WINNING.

And it was all entirely contigent on home prices never going down. Because all that money that was going to all the different parties was only real so long as home prices NEVER went down. Seriously it was like playing a game of craps.

2 good books on this subject:

www.amazon.com

www.amazon.com

I particularly like the first book because it was written before the whole thing fell apart.

I guess that is the fraud part of it. The buyer has no responsibility to check what he is buying? Still seems like the lenders were either very stupid or they were promised payment by someone.

#37 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-07-08 12:53 PM | Reply |

The buyer really had no way. These securities would not have even been possible if not for the age of computers and the genius of a single programmer who had a long history in the financial services industry. This guy had a record for working for ratings agencies and designing those algorithms they use to rate.

He turned around and used that knowledge to create a program that chunked up all the different loans and put them back together in such a way that made the ratings agencies happy.

The customer was given the assurance that even if they had some bad debt in the security, this was covered by the good debt, and the ratings agencies were backing this asssesment up.

And nobody really had any clue what was in them. It was just too complicated and this is why a computer had to do the job. They just shoveled a bunch of loans into the computer, and it spit out gold plated securities. Everyone involved was making money hand over fist and didn't want to ask.

The guys that did ask what was really going on, was fired, and shuffled out the door.

The guy that wrote the computer program, was sitting under a mountain of NDA's, and was rather mindfull of the fact that he would have his career ended forever if he started spilling the dirt on what was really going on.

Again the main thing to remember here, is that everyone was making money. There were no losers while this was all going on. Its like that old saying never look a gifted horse in the mouth.

I think the Hawk has a handle on it.

It was a bubble. Bubbles exist when and as long as everyone believes there is no downside in a market.

There are guilty parties here, certainly, but in my mind the starting gun was deregulation.

BTW, did you know that AIG paid Goldman Sachs $13 billion immediately after receiving the bailout money to satisfy obligations from selling credit default swaps?

Those "swaps" were insurance, sold by an insurance company.

They were also completely unregulated.

Regulations that were put in place after the Depression have been systematically repealed, and the behavior they were meant to prevent has reoccurred.

It was a bubble. Bubbles exist when and as long as everyone believes there is no downside in a market.

#78 | Posted by silver_ironist

Hard to buy so close after the dot com bubble burst. Who is stoopid?

Hard to buy so close after the dot com bubble burst. Who is stoopid?

A better question is, who is inflating the bubbles?

Money goes to where profit is believed to be high in relation to risk.

Deregulation allows mechanisms to be put in place that make it difficult or impossible to accurately judge risk.

Couple that with a generation of investors that have never experienced a severe market downturn (the stupid) and you have a disaster in the making.

In the 20's is was 'trusts', now its CDO and CDS's.

New name, same game.

Hide the risk, sell the sizzle.

"Everybody is going to get rich! Don't be left behind!"

Silver, Have you started your new job or are you still in Wilmington?

Again the main thing to remember here, is that everyone was making money. There were no losers while this was all going on. Its like that old saying never look a gifted horse in the mouth.

#76 | Posted by KnightHawk

Except all of us tax payers. We didn't take any risk but got to pay for the risk of someone else. Not a chance for our reward either.

Those "swaps" were insurance, sold by an insurance company.

They were also completely unregulated.

Regulations that were put in place after the Depression have been systematically repealed, and the behavior they were meant to prevent has reoccurred.

#77 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2009-07-08 04:23 PM | Reply |

Yeah I forgot to even mention this. But its a massive part of the problem. Basically you could take out insurance on your crap security, and make the ratings even better. Because hey whats more secure than a loan with insurance if it goes bad right?

Its completely breathtaking the enormity of what has happened. And the level of greed of everyone involved to the point of absolute absurdity.

If Obama had given $200 billion to American homeowners instead of giving it to one company, AIG, maybe all of this fraud would not have a market out there.

Obama lives in a giant white house that has 132 rooms, 35 bathrooms, 6 levels, a pool, tennis court, gym, bowling alley, movie theater and has 5 personal chefs. Why the f@ck would he care about the average peon American? This douchebag is going on $25,000 taxpayer funded dates to New York with his wife. Giant FU to the poor! Bwahahhahahaaha says Obama.

Silver, Have you started your new job or are you still in Wilmington?

What new job?

Do you know something I don't?

Nope, still down here in Wilmington.

I really like the place but I think I am going to have to go back to a big city if I want to succeed again. Maybe Charlotte or Atlanta.

The way I look at it, I took my retirement years off in the middle of my career.

It was fun while it lasted but now it's time to put the harness back on.

I am currently investigating green tech in hopes of forming a startup that can collect some of that manna from heaven I hear so much about.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable