TPS Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 5 hours ago, keepthefaith said: Greed, stupidity and/or failure to scrutinize what they were buying. The buyers set the market willingly buying high LTV deals from many mediocre credit borrowers often without scrutinizing the underlying credits. Mortgage finance companies and banks filled that demand. Without those loan buyers and insurers willing to write coverage at the same levels of risk, the market never gets stupid or gets a lot less stupid. This is a good piece on current issues with subprime auto loans. It's almost identical to what the banks were doing with housing. Fortunately, the market size is no where near housing.... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-25/subprime-auto-giant-s-loans-souring-at-fastest-clip-since-2008 btw, a lot Of those buyers you mention relied on the ratings agencies who were corrupted by conflict of interest.
Foxx Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 2 hours ago, TPS said: This is a good piece on current issues with subprime auto loans. It's almost identical to what the banks were doing with housing. Fortunately, the market size is no where near housing.... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-25/subprime-auto-giant-s-loans-souring-at-fastest-clip-since-2008 btw, a lot Of those buyers you mention relied on the ratings agencies who were corrupted by conflict of interest. let us not forget the mortgage bundled derivatives that contributed mightily.
GG Posted October 31, 2019 Author Posted October 31, 2019 2 hours ago, TPS said: This is a good piece on current issues with subprime auto loans. It's almost identical to what the banks were doing with housing. Fortunately, the market size is no where near housing.... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-25/subprime-auto-giant-s-loans-souring-at-fastest-clip-since-2008 btw, a lot Of those buyers you mention relied on the ratings agencies who were corrupted by conflict of interest. You're using a warning signs of one particular bank with loose credit standards as a harbinger for the economy? That piece was about Santander, not auto loans in general. BTW, the warning was sounded by one of the rating agencies. So which is it, are they conflicted or are they warning the market about Santander's issues? FWIW, none of the data that I've seen supports signs of troubles in any segment of the credit markets.
TPS Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, GG said: You're using a warning signs of one particular bank with loose credit standards as a harbinger for the economy? That piece was about Santander, not auto loans in general. BTW, the warning was sounded by one of the rating agencies. So which is it, are they conflicted or are they warning the market about Santander's issues? FWIW, none of the data that I've seen supports signs of troubles in any segment of the credit markets. Maybe you should read the posts prior to mine in order to understand the context, then maybe you would not have misinterpreted it. First, I posted the article because some of the things (lack of income verification for example) that are going on with subprime auto loans are exactly what happened with housing--which is what the related posts were discussing. No where did I say it was "a harbinger for the economy;" in fact, I stated it is relatively small compared to housing. Second, my aside comment about the ratings agencies was also about the housing crisis, not the Santander article.
GG Posted October 31, 2019 Author Posted October 31, 2019 49 minutes ago, TPS said: Maybe you should read the posts prior to mine in order to understand the context, then maybe you would not have misinterpreted it. First, I posted the article because some of the things (lack of income verification for example) that are going on with subprime auto loans are exactly what happened with housing--which is what the related posts were discussing. No where did I say it was "a harbinger for the economy;" in fact, I stated it is relatively small compared to housing. Second, my aside comment about the ratings agencies was also about the housing crisis, not the Santander article. Except one bank's decision to loosen credit standards on a segment of loans in a fully depreciating asset class is nothing like an entire industry loosening credit standards on broad sectors which didn't have asset depreciation, and was fully supported by all the regulators.
Tiberius Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: Oh, facts...
SoCal Deek Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Oh, facts... And continued economic growth bothers you why exactly?
transplantbillsfan Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: And continued economic growth bothers you why exactly? Because it was supposed to be much more substantial and it's been slowing for awhile thanks in large part to the policies of the guy in the oval office--tariffs in particular. Edited October 31, 2019 by transplantbillsfan
SoCal Deek Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 13 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Because it was supposed to be much more substantial and it's been slowing for awhile thanks in large part to the policies of the guy in the oval office--tariffs in particular. Let’s say you’re right. And this growth is bugging you how exactly?
3rdnlng Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 14 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Because it was supposed to be much more substantial and it's been slowing for awhile thanks in large part to the policies of the guy in the oval office--tariffs in particular. So, you'd rather continue to take it up the ass from China rather than get a fair deal with them that will make our economy better? 1
Foxx Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: Because it was supposed to be much more substantial and it's been slowing for awhile thanks in large part to the policies of the guy in the oval office--tariffs in particular. so... you disagree with the fight for fair trade? Edited October 31, 2019 by Foxx
GG Posted October 31, 2019 Author Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said: Because it was supposed to be much more substantial and it's been slowing for awhile thanks in large part to the policies of the guy in the oval office--tariffs in particular. No serious person would dispute the tariffs' effect on the US economy. But no serious person would dispute the underlying fundamental strength of the US that can bear the shock of the tariffs. Comparing the sub 2.0% growth rates in Obama's terms vs Trump's term is like crowing about Sabres 10 game win streak under Housley, when all serious observers knew it wasn't sustainable because the fundamentals weren't there. 2
Koko78 Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 19 hours ago, Hedge said: Whether Tulsi goes the 3rd Party route or not, I fully expect that there will be *at least* one 3rd Party Candidate from somewhere on the Right side of the spectrum. I think that is the only way President Trump can lose. Siphon off the some of the Right with an extremist, or with a moderate Never-Trumper who promises not to use Twitter, and it comes down to the new votes he picks up with #WalkAway, #Blexit, and voters who stayed away from the polls last time. And these same groups could also end up going for someone like Tulsi instead. Any right-wing third party candidate is going to fail miserably trying to siphon votes away from Trump. 90+% of Republicans support Trump, and combined with the independents who are sick of the Democrat lunacy, as well as the defectors from the left who will vote for Trump, he's not going to lose in 2020. It's probably going to be a win for the Democrats if they can keep Trump under 350 electoral votes. Tulsi can hurt the Democrats, especially if they try to cry about their 'popular vote' stupidity (which is why I think they're either going to promise something to buy her off, or manufacture something to destroy her.) Anyone trying to take votes from Trump on the right will quickly find themselves completely irrelevant.
Koko78 Posted October 31, 2019 Posted October 31, 2019 7 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: So, you'd rather continue to take it up the ass from China rather than get a fair deal with them that will make our economy better? It would seem that he would rather we all continue to take it up the ass from China if it means his "team" wins. His "team" not being the United States of America.
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: It would seem that he would rather we all continue to take it up the ass from China if it means his "team" wins. His "team" not being the United States of America. Well, his home state is in Asia after all.
Buffalo_Gal Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 U.S. adds better-than-expected 128,000 jobs in October as economy holds strong The numbers: The U.S. created 128,000 new jobs in October and hiring was stronger at the end of summer than previously reported, suggesting the economy is still holding up better than expected despite trade turbulence and a slowdown in global growth. The increase in hiring last month easily topped the 75,000 forecast of economists surveyed by MarketWatch. Wall Street had expected a six-week GM GM, +0.74% strike to result in a much smaller increase in employment last month. </snip> Oh, and "unexpectedly" August and September jobs numbers were revised upward... by a lot: </snip> * Of note, jobs added in August were revised up by 51K (to +219K) and those added in September were revised up by 44K (to 180K). </snip> 4
TPS Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 On 10/31/2019 at 8:25 AM, GG said: You're using a warning signs of one particular bank with loose credit standards as a harbinger for the economy? That piece was about Santander, not auto loans in general. BTW, the warning was sounded by one of the rating agencies. So which is it, are they conflicted or are they warning the market about Santander's issues? FWIW, none of the data that I've seen supports signs of troubles in any segment of the credit markets. I meant to respond to this....Maybe you're not looking in the right places? https://www.wsj.com/articles/wave-of-financial-stress-hits-low-rated-companies-11571736606 Quote Meanwhile, the number of loans downgraded by S&P Global Ratings has outpaced upgrades over the past three months by the largest amount in a decade. Default rates have also started to edge higher, though they remain well below their levels even from a few years ago. https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1htfp0w2w1c8r/Bigger-Private-Equity-Checks-Won-t-Make-Up-for-Weakened-Credit-Protections Quote “Credit quality continues to deteriorate with aggressive transactions and behavior, with 40 percent of first-time issuers rated B3 this year — twice that of the last recession,” Moody’s said in a report this week. Private equity firms have been driving up the number of companies rated B3, or six levels below investment grade, prompting warnings from Moody’s that defaults in the next downturn may exceed the spike seen after the 2008 financial crisis.
GG Posted November 2, 2019 Author Posted November 2, 2019 8 hours ago, TPS said: I meant to respond to this....Maybe you're not looking in the right places? https://www.wsj.com/articles/wave-of-financial-stress-hits-low-rated-companies-11571736606 https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1htfp0w2w1c8r/Bigger-Private-Equity-Checks-Won-t-Make-Up-for-Weakened-Credit-Protections These articles don’t say what you think they’re saying. Try calling someone who wrote one of those pieces to explain it.
TPS Posted November 3, 2019 Posted November 3, 2019 14 hours ago, GG said: These articles don’t say what you think they’re saying. Try calling someone who wrote one of those pieces to explain it. I'm sure you're right, there are no signs of trouble in ANY segment of the credit markets. Nothing to see here...
Recommended Posts