TristansShadow wrote:
give it up 'ring. We know why Ol Badger is desperate to exonerate Fannie / Freddie. We also know where this mess started.
Actually, what makes you think I'm the one who's desperate? I didn't bring this up. And 'ring should give it up because his own data refute his case. As do CP4's. You can't be desperate when you're holding a royal flush.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I post a link to a WSJ article investigating how the money is siphoned off to a bank being protected by the same person (Barney F) that thought Freddie and Fanny were just fine. Ignored by the leftsist, more data that indicates the trillions are just being thrown away, crickets chirping.
??? Not sure what you're talking about, but if it's something from the WSJ, well...
Say OB -- how many months have the various portions of TARP been released, where is it, and how is it propelling the recovery?
Let's see, TS, I think this is the third time I've had to explain this, but here goes: The TARP money was not to propel a recovery, it was to keep the banking system from collapsing completely. Congress only released half the money ($350 billion) which no one thought was enough--and at that the Bush Adminstration only used about $250 billion before leaving office. There's still a banking crisis; it likely will get worse before it gets better. Let's all hope the system stabilizes soon, because those photos of bread lines from 1933 aren't exactly charming.
Another question--- what happens if the ChiComs decide not to buy the next series of bounds (pun intended) when Obama doubles down with another billion or so? Just print it?
What the heck are you talking about? One of the few financial instruments that is being sold easily is the US government bond. Did you already forget that just a few weeks ago Treasury was selling them for 0 percent interest? This is the time for the government to borrow--it's literally getting free money!
Dick Morris: Here comes socialism
| Author | Comment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Ol Badger |
#41 | ||||
|
Posts: 6203 01/23/09 11:09 PM DC Totalitarian |
These ARE the good old days!
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
TristansShadow |
#42 | ||||
|
Posts: 3300 01/23/09 11:25 PM Chef Ameche |
Royal flush or toilet flush? we'll see in time.
The TARP money was not to propel a recovery, it was to keep the banking system from collapsing completely.oh, I see. You have removed the "banking system" from the economy. Honestly, if the banking system wasn't supposed to propel consumer borrowing and business borrowing, in other words save the economy, why did we spend a trillion on it? If it just sits there, let it die. Your position that it stands alone is ludicrous. A trillion here, a trillion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money. And good to know I can dispense with all of those negligible facts raised by the WSJ. Who care if Barnie F mismanages things? What were those line from Obama's speech? If a program doesn't work.............. And no longer tolerating mismanagement?
"The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."
Barack Obama |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Ol Badger |
#43 | ||||
|
Posts: 6205 01/23/09 11:33 PM DC Totalitarian |
TristansShadow wrote: Really, TS, you can't score partisan debating points on me by attacking Obama, lol. Remember? 
These ARE the good old days!
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
TristansShadow |
#44 | ||||
|
Posts: 3302 01/23/09 11:43 PM Chef Ameche |
Ol Badger wrote: Who was trying to score partisan debating points? LOL! But I find your whole game of Good Hillary / Bad Barack more than a little disingenuous. It seems to me you are fixing things in your own mind for a win / win. If Huge Gov't digs its way out of this situation it shows how wonderful it all is. If it tanks it's because Barack mismanaged it. And though you swim in a reservoir of personal distaste for the man his positions on these things (and most things) seem eerily close to your own. His calls for a massive bailout of banking is different from your position in what way?
"The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."
Barack Obama |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Ol Badger |
#45 | ||||
|
Posts: 6208 01/23/09 11:49 PM DC Totalitarian |
TristansShadow wrote: I'm being "disingenuous"? Geezus! I've taken a consistent position on this for months, even backing the previous (Republican) President. What the hell has been disingenuous? You want to disagree with me, fine. You want to call me a socialist, fine. But what the hell is the point of questioning my motives? This is really annoying. I think I'll leave you to debate with yourself and get some sleep. 
These ARE the good old days!
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
badgering |
#46 | ||||
|
Posts: 2000 01/23/09 11:53 PM
|
Ol Badger wrote:It's not my own data. To the extent you refer to the data I presented from the Washington Post, what it shows is that GSE's were the largest players in the subprime market during the period the bubble formed - in one year accounting for almost half of all subprime loans. My case is that GSE's were complicit, along with the rest of the market, in inflating the bubble. Or, I guess I could assess it the way you apparently have: the GSE's loans didn't inflate the bubble, only the other loans made by the bad guys from the private sector did. 
The reason this all came up is because of the narrow and tortured argument you presented regarding derivatives. My case on that issue is that while GSE's didn't directly purchase derivatives, they, along with other market participants, inflated subprime and prime bubble. In so doing, it made the market for derivatives more liquid thereby increasing the number and amount of those instruments. When the large housing/mortgage bubble burst, so did the now large derivative market. It all boils down to too much money at too low a rate chasing too few assets. Just like every other capital market bubble since the start of capitalism. It baffles me as to why this is so difficult to grasp. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
JSG II |
#47 | ||||
|
Posts: 1316 01/24/09 12:35 AM |
His calls for a massive bailout of banking is different from your position in what way?
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Ol Badger |
#48 | ||||
|
Posts: 6209 01/24/09 9:33 AM DC Totalitarian |
badgering wrote: It's not difficult to grasp at all. But remember that the start of our disagreement was this:
Whether Fannie and Freddie bought or sold derivatives is beside the point. The perceived value (and actual value) of said derivatives was derived from the underlying value of the securities - namely mortgages which were blessed by Fannie and Freddie qualifying standards. The problem here is that most of these mortgages were not "blessed by Fannie and Freddie qualifying standards." Indeed, Fannie and Freddie were quite late to the sub-prime party. Take this, from 2002: Subprime lending has grown rapidly in the past decade as a segment within the conventional mortgage market. Last year, lenders originated about $173 billion in subprime loans, up from just $25 billion in 1993...Interestingly, subprime market growth in the 1990s occurred largely without the participation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The GSEs started showing interest in this market toward the end of the decade and now purchase A-minus mortgages as a regular part of their business. National Mortgage News, a trade publication, estimates their combined market share in 2001 grew by 74 percent, representing about 11.5 percent of all subprime loan originations in that year. link To the extent Fannie and Freddie did participate they were buying only A-minus loans, not B, C, or D. By the time Fannie and Freddie got heavily into sub-primes the bubble already was beginning to burst, in 2006:
These ARE the good old days!
Last Edited By: Ol Badger 01/24/09 9:36 AM.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
CPooley4 |
#49 | ||||
|
Posts: 747 01/24/09 1:06 PM |
The facts are the facts. I'd never be one to exonerate Fannie and Freddie from the mess we're in. However, they were much smaller players than most
believe and that's the only point I was trying to make.
I worked for a private Subprime lender back in 2002. Fannie and Freddie wouldn't even come close to thinking about purchasing the loans we were writing. They were all manual underwrites without any inkling of standard Fannie and Freddie guidelines. They were loans pretty much designed to make sure that the borrowers could make payments for at least 6 months (6 month LIBOR, 12 month LIBOR, etc...). The reason for that is because they could sell them to other companies looking to buy up Mortgages and as long as the borrower made the first 6 consecutive payments on time it was no longer a risk to the company I worked for. If they began defaulting in the 7th month or later it was the company that bought the loans problem. This was the Subprime market back then and many companies were getting in on the fun because of the immense profits and the perceived low risk. The company I worked for was actually a home building company primarily that then branched off into the Mortgage lending market. We were the smallest arm of the company, but we were also the most profitable while the getting was good. About four years after I left the company they were gone. You had a perfect storm for risk taking at the time. Leverage ratios were no longer in place and interest rates were being held artificially low by the Fed. The private companies were balls deep into it as soon as they figured out how to make the profits. They began taking market share from Fannie and Freddie, as soon as F and F figured that out they started to participate as well on a much more limited risk tolerance. As OB points out, they didn't get into the C and D paper stuff. They bought EA 1's, 2's, and 3's (their underwriting guidelines) which were really A minus and B paper loans. If you want to look at the core reason for the Housing market crashing/correcting it's quite simple. With Underwriting standards where they were (100% financing, no income/no assets loans, stated income loans, option ARM's, etc...), you had people brought into the home purchasing market that really had no business being there. The demand that came with this pushed prices sky high. Well, now you've removed all of those products and tightened all the Underwriting standards on conventional products. They've essentially removed all of the people that should never of been in the home purchasing market in the first place and made it harder to obtain the conventional loans as well. Demand is now obviously much lower and down come the prices. This fucking around with interest rates that is going on right now is serving the purpose of propping up the market. It's artificial and they should just stop it. The prices must come down further and they will as soon as the Gov stops manipulating the interest rate market.
Word.
Last Edited By: CPooley4 01/24/09 4:16 PM.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
badgering |
#50 | ||||
|
Posts: 2011 01/24/09 1:18 PM
|
Good post, CP.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Ol Badger |
#51 | ||||
|
Posts: 6213 01/24/09 3:29 PM DC Totalitarian |
badgering wrote: Geeze, I take the brunt of your arguments for days on this, then CP comes in and gets the congratulations? What am I, choppped liver? 
These ARE the good old days!
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
badgering |
#52 | ||||
|
Posts: 2012 01/24/09 3:37 PM
|
Well, OB, CPooley's post was more balanced in that he correctly does not exonerate GSE's and points out the Fed's complicity as well as presents
good anecdotal support in explaining what happened in the private marketplace. I found that more persuasive than a dismissive "LOL! Nice try."
But I still luv ya', man!
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Ol Badger |
#53 | ||||
|
Posts: 6215 01/24/09 3:58 PM DC Totalitarian |
badgering wrote: What, you missed all that other stuff that came after the "nice try"? Sheesh, I'm starting to feel like Rodney Dangerfield! 
These ARE the good old days!
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
CPooley4 |
#54 | ||||
|
Posts: 748 01/24/09 4:21 PM |
You guys are so nice!
Word.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
badgering |
#55 | ||||
|
Posts: 2013 01/24/09 4:23 PM
|
Ol Badger wrote: I have selective memory. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
badgering |
#56 | ||||
|
Posts: 2014 01/24/09 4:24 PM
|
CPooley4 wrote:Screw you, Pooley.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
sackman86 |
#57 | ||||
|
Posts: 889 01/24/09 9:50 PM |
I'm sorry, was this the Dick Morris that I heard the day before the election on Fox radio saying that things were breaking McCain's way. I have never
heard someone so wrong as I did Dick Morris throughout the campaign.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
bhambadger |
#58 | ||||
|
Posts: 1812 01/24/09 10:05 PM Asian chicks, Bham, Asian chicks! |
sackman86 wrote: Do you not remember the "Condi vs. Hillary" book he wrote? Some people are like slinkies -- they're not good for much, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs. |
||||
|
|
|||||
