Booster4324 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Actually, I have. Repeatedly. Do I need to repeat it yet again? Umm you usually say **** about how people took out mortgages they couldn't pay off. Which is a fair enough statement, but is facile and ignores the much huger and more !@#$ed up bit of banks bundling what they knew was bad debt and selling the ****. That is what got us where we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Umm you usually say **** about how people took out mortgages they couldn't pay off. Which is a fair enough statement, but is facile and ignores the much huger and more !@#$ed up bit of banks bundling what they knew was bad debt and selling the ****. That is what got us where we are. So forcing the banks to make loans to people that that the banks know can't pay them back. Then the banks try to make some kind of profit on the loan they would never have made in the first place. And it's the banks fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Umm you usually say **** about how people took out mortgages they couldn't pay off. Which is a fair enough statement, but is facile and ignores the much huger and more !@#$ed up bit of banks bundling what they knew was bad debt and selling the ****. That is what got us where we are. No, it's not facile, and I don't ignore what the banks did (I was involved with it, remember? I know what their risk management was.) But it's not "huger", nor is it "more !@#$ed up". Unless you're saying Ginnie, Fannie, and Freddie were completely asinine programs from inception...? Really Tom? You're smarter than this. At least I thought you were. Follow the money trail. It starts and ends in lower Manhattan but there's a lof of accomplices in this train robbery. "Starts and ends in lower Manhattan"...but you're not saying it's Wall Street's fault? Ummm...okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 No, it's not facile, and I don't ignore what the banks did (I was involved with it, remember? I know what their risk management was.) But it's not "huger", nor is it "more !@#$ed up". Unless you're saying Ginnie, Fannie, and Freddie were completely asinine programs from inception...? "Starts and ends in lower Manhattan"...but you're not saying it's Wall Street's fault? Ummm...okay. When in doubt, follow the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) No, it's not facile, and I don't ignore what the banks did (I was involved with it, remember? I know what their risk management was.) But it's not "huger", nor is it "more !@#$ed up". Unless you're saying Ginnie, Fannie, and Freddie were completely asinine programs from inception...? "Starts and ends in lower Manhattan"...but you're not saying it's Wall Street's fault? Ummm...okay. To address both you and Dev, I am willing to blame the government. My point is you always want to blame the homeowners. Edit-Yet again totally comfortable in my position. Edited October 10, 2011 by Booster4324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Umm you usually say **** about how people took out mortgages they couldn't pay off. Which is a fair enough statement, but is facile and ignores the much huger and more !@#$ed up bit of banks bundling what they knew was bad debt and selling the ****. That is what got us where we are. yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 So forcing the banks to make loans to people that that the banks know can't pay them back. Then the banks try to make some kind of profit on the loan they would never have made in the first place. And it's the banks fault? I don't have a breakdown of the loan details but I think "forced" is a strong word. The only way to force a bank to do anything is to rob it. Still, that doesn't absolve them of their borderline criminal/incestuous relationship with the ratings agencies. What they are guilty of is complete and utter financial fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 To address both you and Dev, I am willing to blame the government. My point is you always want to blame the homeowners. Edit-Yet again totally comfortable in my position. Because the homeowners are also at fault. And if you honestly think I've never blamed the banks or the government, you're dumber than I thought. How many times have I said that WaMu and Countrywide deserved to go out of business for their stupid lending practices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Because the homeowners are also at fault. I'm suspicious of anyone who can't see, understand and accept this very simple reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Because the homeowners are also at fault. And if you honestly think I've never blamed the banks or the government, you're dumber than I thought. How many times have I said that WaMu and Countrywide deserved to go out of business for their stupid lending practices? I don't disagree with this at all. There were plenty of individuals who were willing to line up for NINA loans knowing full well they couldn't pay them. They deserve to be treated with the same level of disdain that the banks do. I would like to know what the total percentage of the "bubble" this represented though. The difference as I see it is that those dirtbags will eventually wind up homeless. The thieves who made millions on their willingness to take those loans keep every penny they earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I don't disagree with this at all. There were plenty of individuals who were willing to line up for NINA loans knowing full well they couldn't pay them. They deserve to be treated with the same level of disdain that the banks do. I would like to know what the total percentage of the "bubble" this represented though. The difference as I see it is that those dirtbags will eventually wind up homeless. The thieves who made millions on their willingness to take those loans keep every penny they earned. Oh I know plenty of "dirtbag" mortgage brokers that lost everything as well. I have a client who was making $1mil a year brokering mortgages. Where is he today? Not sure but he lost all his real estate, cashed out his retirement accounts, cashed out his insurance and got divorced. There was pleny of carnage to go around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Oh I know plenty of "dirtbag" mortgage brokers that lost everything as well. I have a client who was making $1mil a year brokering mortgages. Where is he today? Not sure but he lost all his real estate, cashed out his retirement accounts, cashed out his insurance and got divorced. There was pleny of carnage to go around. And like I said before...Countrywide and WaMu - two of the lenders that by and large created the whole subprime market to begin with - got what they deserved. Plenty of people responsible for those messes got slaughtered financially. And there's still plenty of shady lenders out there - my wife has had a few shut down - and rampant fraud. Usually at a completely different, much lower level though (most lenders still demand and expect kickbacks from title companies...which, ironically, is an even bigger problem under Dodd-Frank.) Mike, of course, is talking about firms like Goldman and JP Morgan and AIG being the "thieves". Though I'm still trying to figure out what they actually "stole" (and no, "follow the money" isn't the answer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Mike, of course, is talking about firms like Goldman and JP Morgan and AIG being the "thieves". Though I'm still trying to figure out what they actually "stole" (and no, "follow the money" isn't the answer). Jesus, almost four weeks of smelly hippies piling up trash, banging drums, repeating each other, and crapping on police cars and you STILL don't know what they stole? Our freedom, Tom. They stole our freedom. We'll never be free until they rightfully give us our fair share of their profits. Only then will we be free. I mean, we won't stop crapping on police cars, but we'll be free dammit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I don't disagree with this at all. There were plenty of individuals who were willing to line up for NINA loans knowing full well they couldn't pay them. They deserve to be treated with the same level of disdain that the banks do. I would like to know what the total percentage of the "bubble" this represented though. They represented 100% of the defaults, which this all boils down to. Do you also want to throw home builders, real estate agents, title companies and everyone else involved in real estate into jail for participating in the run up, even though no laws were broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 Boogie Man Alert!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Boogie Man Alert!! Can we throw Dodd, Frank and Durbin into the investigation as well. Their legislation led to the fees... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Boogie Man Alert!! How come there were no investigations when restaurants in SF added a Healthy SF "fee" to the bill of my favorite restaurants? Or when they added a $2 fee to my MUNI pass? Oh that's right it's ok when the government adds fees but when free enterprise companies do there needs to be an investigation. So private companies can no long make their own policies? People don't like it? CHANGE !@#$ING BANKS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) One of my banks is a local bank... If I use my DC as a debit trans, I get the .25 fee... I push it through as credit and no fee on me... I take the merchant picks it up? It is always a chore to hunt around the merchant's system once the debit card has been swiped... Some sytems seem to try to get you to use your PIN, others make it a bit easier to find the credit trans (sign). Why at this stage of the game are there even fees? Isn't the banking computer "infrastructure" up and set? It can't possibly cost 25 cents for the service. Isn't the price high? I know it is only 25 cents. One thing I been doing in recent years... Is that I am going more and more old school, carrying cash for the week and writing paper checks. Edited October 14, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 One of my banks is a local bank... If I use my DC as a debit trans, I get the .25 fee... I push it through as credit and no fee on me... I take the merchant picks it up? It is always a chore to hunt around the merchant's system once the debit card has been swiped... Some sytems seem to try to get you to use your PIN, others make it a bit easier to find the credit trans (sign). Why at this stage of the game are there even fees? Isn't the banking computer "infrastructure" up and set? It can't possibly cost 25 cents for the service. Isn't the price high? I know it is only 25 cents. One thing I been doing in recent years... Is that I am going more and more old school, carrying cash for the week and writing paper checks. Really? I've gone hardcore to using my credit cards for almost ALL purchases and paying off the balance every month. Considering the bank accounts net almost 0% interest and the CC's have either cash back or some other incentive, it works out reasonably well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 One of my banks is a local bank... If I use my DC as a debit trans, I get the .25 fee... I push it through as credit and no fee on me... I take the merchant picks it up? It is always a chore to hunt around the merchant's system once the debit card has been swiped... Some sytems seem to try to get you to use your PIN, others make it a bit easier to find the credit trans (sign). Why at this stage of the game are there even fees? Isn't the banking computer "infrastructure" up and set? It can't possibly cost 25 cents for the service. Isn't the price high? I know it is only 25 cents. One thing I been doing in recent years... Is that I am going more and more old school, carrying cash for the week and writing paper checks. The fee is there to 'encourage' you to use your card as a 'credit card'. The credit card network is a more profitable network for the banks than the debit card networks. The 'infrastructure' is set up. However. You still have to pay people to maintain those systems, as well as to pay people in every bank (and at Visa / Mastercard / wherever) to do the back office or accounting side of things. So there are certain fixed costs related to using these debit or credit card networks. There are lots of other costs associated with these transactions, as well -- just off the top of my head, it doesn't appear you've considered the cost of fraud in there, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts