RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Lucylastic -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/14/2016 6:26:23 PM)

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will pay nearly $3.3 billion to resolve state and federal claims that it cheated investors who purchased its mortgage securities, the bank announced Thursday.

The preliminary accord also includes an additional $1.8 billion for others in what the bank described as consumer relief, such as reduced loan balances for households whose mortgages were bundled into those securities, raising the total value of the settlement to $5.1 billion. News reports previously pegged the expected settlement at about $3 billion.

The bank said it struck the deal to settle “actual and potential” civil claims over Goldman’s mortgage securitization activities from 2005 to 2007 by the Department of Justice; attorneys general in New York and Illinois; the National Credit Union Administration, a federal regulator; and the Federal Home Loan Banks of Chicago and Seattle.

Goldman did not admit any wrongdoing in a news release announcing what it described as an “agreement in principle.”

Goldman had previously disclosed the state and federal investigation and warned investors that it likely faced a hefty settlement. The bank has told investors that Benjamin Wagner, the U.S. attorney based in Sacramento, California, “concluded” that the bank violated federal law, according to its securities filings.

About $2.4 billion of the settlement is in the form of a government penalty. The bank has said that it securitized about $125 billion of home loans between 2005 and 2008, of which about $23 billion eventually soured. The penalty represents about 10 percent of investors’ losses.

Goldman can deduct the rest of the settlement, about $2.7 billion, from its future tax bills, according to a person familiar with the accord. The bank said the settlement will reduce its fourth-quarter profit by about $1.5 billion. It reports earnings next week.

The U.S. Justice Department and state prosecutors have come under severe criticism for striking deals with big banks over their allegedly illegal activities without requiring them to admit fault, or by structuring the settlements in a way that allow the banks to reduce their taxes. The Justice Department recently has required some banks to acknowledge wrongdoing. Others lately have pleaded guilty to felonies, after a 2013 admission by former Attorney General Eric Holder that some banks may be too big to prosecute criminally led to a public outcry.

Goldman’s settlement, if finalized, would be the latest in a long string of deals struck between prosecutors and Wall Street over financial companies’ alleged wrongdoing in the years preceding, during and following the financial crisis. In addition to accusations that Wall Street duped investors who bought home loan bonds, banks have settled allegations that they helped drug cartels launder their illicit proceeds through the U.S. financial system; aided rich Americans who hid money abroad to avoid paying taxes; colluded to rig auctions involving municipal bonds; attempted to manipulate foreign exchange markets and key financial benchmarks; and violated U.S. sanctions against nations including Iran and Sudan.




MariaB -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 4:26:42 AM)

This is Neoliberalism at its finest. Its called 'socializing losses'.
This link is good except for its title http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatizing-profits-and-socializing-losses.asp




MariaB -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 4:28:27 AM)

Sorry I can't respond properly atm. Cluster migraines are getting the better of me [&o]




servantforuse -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 5:50:53 AM)

Everyone needs to RELAX. Obama says the economy is just fine.




DominantWrestler -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 6:10:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

This is Neoliberalism at its finest. Its called 'socializing losses'.
This link is good except for its title http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatizing-profits-and-socializing-losses.asp


What you are speaking of is the discorrelation between contribution and compensation. Like how bank CEOs made sure the ownership of the loans was passed on while collecting money for being the middle man in the transaction. Many investment firms work the same way. I got really into this topic a decade or so ago, so my terminology will be off. Basically, the higher ups in investment firms collect money aleverytime a transaction is made. It is the peons of these companies that are often investing their own and others money. But high enough up in the chain, they make money simply because people were trading regardless of whether or not the investors or brokers make money. Guaranteed profits. Discorrelation between risk and gain. One of the primary lessons of the Great Depression. Back then, there was a maximum of 10:1 ratio between investment and down payment on an investment loan. Market became inflated, and is it ironic or just tremendously telling that the stock market dropped to 9% and change of its previous value. During the Great Depression was caused by people who were not leveraged enough. Now it's banks litigating ways to be crucial financial players necessary for market exchanges without ever owning a portion.

Simply put, discorrelation between contribution and compensation is a corner stone to financial players making money and problems without risking their own hides




MariaB -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 9:09:09 AM)

@DominantWrestler

Yes, thank you and btw, intelligent guys are so attractive [:)]




Phydeaux -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 10:52:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

This is Neoliberalism at its finest. Its called 'socializing losses'.
This link is good except for its title http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatizing-profits-and-socializing-losses.asp


What you are speaking of is the discorrelation between contribution and compensation. Like how bank CEOs made sure the ownership of the loans was passed on while collecting money for being the middle man in the transaction. Many investment firms work the same way. I got really into this topic a decade or so ago, so my terminology will be off. Basically, the higher ups in investment firms collect money aleverytime a transaction is made. It is the peons of these companies that are often investing their own and others money. But high enough up in the chain, they make money simply because people were trading regardless of whether or not the investors or brokers make money. Guaranteed profits. Discorrelation between risk and gain. One of the primary lessons of the Great Depression. Back then, there was a maximum of 10:1 ratio between investment and down payment on an investment loan. Market became inflated, and is it ironic or just tremendously telling that the stock market dropped to 9% and change of its previous value. During the Great Depression was caused by people who were not leveraged enough. Now it's banks litigating ways to be crucial financial players necessary for market exchanges without ever owning a portion.

Simply put, discorrelation between contribution and compensation is a corner stone to financial players making money and problems without risking their own hides


interesting that many banking sectors were leveraging 33:1 and 150:1 not too long ago. Any real wonders why volatility increased..
Sigh.




DesideriScuri -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 2:27:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will pay nearly $3.3 billion to resolve state and federal claims that it cheated investors who purchased its mortgage securities, the bank announced Thursday.
The preliminary accord also includes an additional $1.8 billion for others in what the bank described as consumer relief, such as reduced loan balances for households whose mortgages were bundled into those securities, raising the total value of the settlement to $5.1 billion. News reports previously pegged the expected settlement at about $3 billion.
...
Goldman’s settlement, if finalized, would be the latest in a long string of deals struck between prosecutors and Wall Street over financial companies’ alleged wrongdoing in the years preceding, during and following the financial crisis. In addition to accusations that Wall Street duped investors who bought home loan bonds, banks have settled allegations that they helped drug cartels launder their illicit proceeds through the U.S. financial system; aided rich Americans who hid money abroad to avoid paying taxes; colluded to rig auctions involving municipal bonds; attempted to manipulate foreign exchange markets and key financial benchmarks; and violated U.S. sanctions against nations including Iran and Sudan.


Was it Goldman Sachs that sold MBS's to clients while the company itself was betting on the MBS's to fail? I very easily could be wrong on that count, but, one of the "big names" did it.

If that's the case, did the government go easy on GS?
    quote:

    The agreement in principle requires Goldman to pay $2.385 billion in civil penalties and $875 million in cash and provide up to $1.8 billion in relief to consumers.

    Bank of America in 2014 paid about $16.6 billion in a similar settlement with federal and state agencies, and JPMorgan Chase paid about $13 billion in 2013. In all, the banks have paid more than $40 billion in settlements to resolve claims investigated by the task force.

    All the mortgage settlements have included a certain amount of so-called soft money that is intended for loan modifications or foreclosure relief for consumers harmed by the bad mortgages. Some consumer advocates have raised concerns about how that money is allocated and how much comes directly from each bank’s bottom line. In the case of Goldman, the soft money is the $1.8 billion.


BoA: $16.6B
JPMC: $13B
GS: $5.1B







mnottertail -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 2:41:27 PM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pA1Tk7FED0




joether -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 2:58:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
So the Tea Party has been around for 2 decades ?? Do you mean the modern Tea Party or the one that started in Boston more than 2 centuries ago ? You really should think before you go around blabbing bull shit and making stuff up.


Yes, it has been. The Tea Party started out as a lobbying organization for the Koch brothers (it wasn't called the Tea Party back then). But the infrastructure is all there. The 'concept' of the Tea Party is simply an evolution from the Militia Man Movement that died off shortly after 4/19/95. The Republican Party created the monstrousity we known today using the Koch brother's lobbying organization and targeting the former Militia Man Movement folks. They had to take something both 'patriotic' and 'resisting authority', so they used the Boston Tea Party. Stating that event was demanding lower taxes shows how many Tea Partiers do not know their own national history (colonists wanted to be taxed more).

In this instance, the facts are more screwy than the fiction.




mnottertail -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 3:02:59 PM)

And in truth there never has been a tea party. Just nutsuckers.

No one can show a Herbert Imafuckingdildo (T-GA) or any such a thing.

Nutsuckers. thats all there is.




joether -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 4:07:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this is so laughably ironic---first, in keeping with your "consult someone knowledgeable about the markets", here are the author's credentials from the marketwatch article:

quote:

Paul Farrell writes the column on behavioral economics. He's the author of nine books on personal finance, economics and psychology, including "The Millionaire Code," "The Winning Portfolio," "The Lazy Person's Guide to Investing." Farrell was an investment banker with Morgan Stanley; executive vice president of the Financial News Network; executive vice president of Mercury Entertainment Corp; and associate editor of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner.


1, If this guy was so accurate on events in the future; why didn't he win the Powerball? Someone whom can accurately predict things months ahead should be able to predict a set of six pairings of numbers a few days before a drawing.

2. How is this guy invested? Right now? Does he show an accurate picture of his entire financial portfoilo? And keep it open throughout the year, so we can all see how his ROI is doing compared to all of us? Not likely. Why is that? Someone whom is that sure, would easily make his own personal investments public. Or does he have a conflict of interest? A hidden motive? An agenda he wants to play out?

3. Writing many books does not mean someone is knowledgeable on the subject. Just means they are good at writing books. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck publish many books; yet 90% of them are just garbage. The remaining 10% are ideas taken from someone else. How is that different from say, Stephen Hawking, the Astrophysicist? Mr. Hawking's work can be studied and even tested. Its based entirely on science (i.e. a hard science). Mr. Farrell talks about politics, economics, business, investing, and dumb luck in his books (i.e. mostly soft science). While it does provide quite a bit of reading, it does not really say "sometime in the future there will be an amazing fall of economies".

4. Have you read any of these books? I have ironically read "The Millionaire Code". Ever heard of the Myers-Briggs Test? The test basically separates those whom take it down into one of 16 personality types. Mr. Farrell tries to explain how each personality type can succeed at investing using his book. Honestly, it reads like a horoscope; any one personality type is much like four or seven more. It was a neat idea to try to link the two concepts that ultimately doesn't translate into useful information.

"The Lazy Person's Guide to Investing", another book by Mr. Farrell. Its a nice book to give to a student in high school or someone just begining the road to investing. Frankly, I'd give the "Wall Street Journal Complete Money and Investing Guidebook"; not as much bullshit to navigate through. Regardless, the book expresses that one does not need to be a 'hardcore' financial person to invest; just invest in things that are common knowledge. For example, one likes Pepsi; so invest in Pepsi to start. Give it six months and see how your investment has changed.

5. Fancy titles do not imply anything. Everyone likes to have a fancy title; helps stroke their egos. If the person is good at their position; their title can be anything, including 'Garbage Scout, Class 3' (when one REALLY failed at Wing Commander). Difference between the first and second person? The second delivers. How well did this individual deliver for the companies he worked?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
so he's exactly the type of person one could be/should be consulting with. at the very least, id put more credence on what he says than someone who says "the economy is fine." (forgetting for a moment the economy and the stock market are not the same things)


"A fool is soon parted with his money". You want to take financial advice from this individual? Go for it. When you are filling for bankruptcy, make sure to let us all know. No one knows the status of the market place 'x' months ahead. Most people try for a bull economy as they hold long positions. Some are semi-anarchists and want stocks to rapidly change; making money in sort bursts rather than 'over time'. Most people agree that bear markets are something to avoid. Even just talking about them in a joking manner can be dangerous around some.

The economy right now is fine. The stock markets have been volatile. Some stocks can be purchased for a long position. Some can be taken for a short ride. Others, it might be good to sell short. It depends on one's level of risk and how much they have to 'gamble'. Right now, the leading and trailing indicators show a positive if bumpy ride for the near future. A good analogy would be turbulence. Sitting in the plane seat. There are those that are jumpy and white knuckle passengers and those that are fairly relaxed because they have experienced the sensation before. Try to be that second passenger and you'll do well at investing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
but the bigger irony is, the authors a leftie and he's blaming the GOP...but he's a "moron." oops...


It always seems to shock conservatives; liberals can and do disagree with each other on things. Liberals can agree and disagree on things. The more educated tend to explain their viewpoints much more in depth. Conservatives on the other hand are unable to be anything but rigid in everything. There can be no disagreement if the 'big people' wish agreement. Political conservatives are different from financial conservatives. You are implying the first. Financial conservatives can be politically liberal. Actually, it benefits them. They know when to take an educated gamble on an investment when the situation presents itself.

I just disagree with the guy. That is allowed in this nation if your not aware....

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
never mind the mythical misinformation about the housing crisis and the recession. although, "deluded" is still on the table.


Yeah, that "...mythical misinformation..." came from the Republican Party back in 2001 and going forward. It got people to support removing regulations because they were convince it would help them out financially. I'm not talking about the individuals whom reaped a pile of money. No, I'm talking about 'The Low Information Voter' whom in some cases lost their job, savings, and even the house when things went to a hellish bear market in 2006. Tens of millions of conservatives were simply LIED to for profit of the few.




joether -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 4:27:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will pay nearly $3.3 billion to resolve state and federal claims that it cheated investors who purchased its mortgage securities, the bank announced Thursday.
The preliminary accord also includes an additional $1.8 billion for others in what the bank described as consumer relief, such as reduced loan balances for households whose mortgages were bundled into those securities, raising the total value of the settlement to $5.1 billion. News reports previously pegged the expected settlement at about $3 billion.
...
Goldman’s settlement, if finalized, would be the latest in a long string of deals struck between prosecutors and Wall Street over financial companies’ alleged wrongdoing in the years preceding, during and following the financial crisis. In addition to accusations that Wall Street duped investors who bought home loan bonds, banks have settled allegations that they helped drug cartels launder their illicit proceeds through the U.S. financial system; aided rich Americans who hid money abroad to avoid paying taxes; colluded to rig auctions involving municipal bonds; attempted to manipulate foreign exchange markets and key financial benchmarks; and violated U.S. sanctions against nations including Iran and Sudan.


Was it Goldman Sachs that sold MBS's to clients while the company itself was betting on the MBS's to fail? I very easily could be wrong on that count, but, one of the "big names" did it.


Yeah, it was pretty nasty! What Goldman did was give two sets of mortgage securities as a derivative. The first group was of housing loans that were in very good condition. The people paying the mortgages were either in good jobs, or very consistent in paying the monthly bill. This group, Goldman Sachs showed to its REALLY good customers only (it never was open). The second group was basically 'problem cases'. These were mortgages that the family either recently lost their job, or the mortgage was unstable to begin (1). Goldman Sach then stated the second group was just like the first one and placed it on the open market.

People saw the first group and how well it was doing, so bought up the second offering without much of a question. If this was not evil and unethical, the next part will be: Goldman Sachs sold short on the entire derivative. Basically they knew it was going to fail within the six month window. When it did, they would follow the 'end steps' for selling short and make profit from two places. It was both really impressive use of legal laws and calculations; and heavily unethical.


(1): Years earlier to the housing crash, the Republican Party removed a whole list of regulations from the books. some of these regulations prevented lending institutions from giving money to people that has problems with credit or big/many outstanding loans. This allowed unscrupulous businesses to sell mortgages to these problem people. Often the advertisement went something like "Crappy Credit? No Money? Problems with Money? No problem! Just come down to Easy Eddie's Housing and get that loan for your dream house" (ok, I'm embellishing it alittle, but you get the idea). These people got these loans believing the regulations were still in place. After all, that has been the norm since the 1930's to 1950's when those regulations came into existence. These people were lied to and paid a heavy price! The housing bubble burst in part, due to this sort of 'gaming the system'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If that's the case, did the government go easy on GS?
    quote:

    The agreement in principle requires Goldman to pay $2.385 billion in civil penalties and $875 million in cash and provide up to $1.8 billion in relief to consumers.

    Bank of America in 2014 paid about $16.6 billion in a similar settlement with federal and state agencies, and JPMorgan Chase paid about $13 billion in 2013. In all, the banks have paid more than $40 billion in settlements to resolve claims investigated by the task force.

    All the mortgage settlements have included a certain amount of so-called soft money that is intended for loan modifications or foreclosure relief for consumers harmed by the bad mortgages. Some consumer advocates have raised concerns about how that money is allocated and how much comes directly from each bank’s bottom line. In the case of Goldman, the soft money is the $1.8 billion.


BoA: $16.6B
JPMC: $13B
GS: $5.1B


From my perspective, I have not fully read the BoA issue yet. One of these days when I have free time....




Termyn8or -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 5:26:43 PM)

"1, If this guy was so accurate on events in the future; why didn't he win the Powerball? Someone whom can accurately predict things months ahead should be able to predict a set of six pairings of numbers a few days before a drawing. "

You have seriously outstupided yourself there. Tell you what buddy, you keep your money in the market and we'll see you on skid row when QE stops.
Oh, never heard of QE ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

"Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy when standard monetary policy has become ineffective.[1][2][3][4] A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply"

Now, what is the central bank brainiac ? The fed. Where does the money come from ? It is created under franchise, indirectly that is, by the government.

You would fight to the death for your liberal ideals wouldn't you ? IN A BURNING HOUSE. You really think we can just keep on borrowing money forever. Are you a politician ? Whatever you are it must not have much to do with numbers. Anyone who thinks this economy is anything resembling recovering or healthy or anything of the sort is totally brainwashed. Why do you think the world is moving away from the US dollar ?

And unlike the school taughten zombies running the show, I KNOW what caused this shit and I KNOW what it would take to fix it and I KNOW the only way out is default. How much of that $18 trillion do YOU intend to pay ?

Thomas Edison was right, the government was stupid to borrow ANY money. they should have paid off the civil war and then when money was needed simply print it. However, when you do that, the money in circulation is devaluated much more quickly, meaning during a certain term in office. If FDR would have pulled his socialistic shit in his first term and simply printed the money to do it, the devaluation (which people mistakenly call inflation) would have come too soon. He would likely not have had a second term. And now, wonder why the republicans won't put forth a good candidate ? They DO have some you know. Bottom line is they want to blame the collapse on democrats, even though they helped greatly to achieve it. With politicians, it is not a matter of whose fault it is, it is a matter of who gets the blame.

By borrowing the money, the negative effects on the currency are delayed, but actually become more severe as interest on the debt becomes more taxing. This is after the bridge is burnt folks, there is no going back.

Take 300 million USians, the debt is $18 trillion. Let's call it 15 for round numbers. That is fifty grand each. So if we all pitched in $500 a year it would be paid off in 100 years, well that is if the interest stopped.

But then out of that 300 million, less than half even file taxes, let alone pay anything significant. And that number is going down because it is so fucking cumbersome to hire a full time employee these days. With EIC some get back more than they paid in.

Economists should not be called economists because they are not. What they are is disaster managers. They learn to operate in this little paradigm of debt, dealing in debt, literally. In a real economy, like Norway, Russia, there is production. THAT is capitalism and someone here said what we are in is not capitalism, it is monetarism. In capitalism you produce something people need or want and they buy it. We do not do that. Most of the money made in this country is made on paper. There is a whole class of caviar eating pricks out there who produce nothing and make a shit tom of money by knowing how to navigate through he different scams going on, joining one when it is lucrative and getting out just before it falls down.

And then there is another class - the wealthy - who can actually manipulate the market because of their buying power. And they know what they're doing. Most of them do not want to kill the goose, however at certain times it is advantageous to them to pluck a few feathers. Like in 1929, 2008, and probably again in about 2017.

The revolution should have happened in the 1930s when the government called in the gold. Gold and silver are Constitutionally recognized as lawful money, for the government to take it by force of law is against the law. It does not matter that they give you pieces of paper for it. How about I stick a gun in your face and say "Gimme your car or else" and then give you a piece of paper that says "I owe the duck one car" ? No, it doesn't work that way.

T^T




Termyn8or -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 5:52:10 PM)

"The housing bubble burst in part, due to this sort of 'gaming the system'. "

When you blow bubbles, they burst.

The housing bubble was CAUSED by easy credit. There were never any regulations on to whom banks could loan money, how much or anything about the borrowers' credentials. The banks set all that up to keep from getting screwed.

The feds started getting their foot in the door with the VA and FHA loans. They did not insure the note but they did insure the payments in between the default, eviction and subsequent sheriff sale.

Later, under democrat regimes, the push was on for more low income homeowners. Low income is code for "Black". Before FHA, you never got a house with less than 20 % downpayment, and there was a significant increase in interest rates from a 15 year to a 30 year. You also needed to have X months total bills in the bank and sign a notarized statement that you did not borrow that money or the downpayment.

Then FHA comes along and you can get a house for 5 % down. Now let's figure this out, if you can qualify, by income, for a $250,000 house, and cannot come up with fifty grand down, how is that ? You been working this job for a while or else you wouldn't get the loan.

And then, we come to the point where they had ads on TV saying you can have a quarter million dollar house for about six something a month. But then that is variable rate. They knew the people wold be evicted eventually. they knew damn well their income would not rise to the occasion when the "introductory period" was over and the house payment went to $2,300 a month. THEY KNEW.

And this has been going on a long time, and it is one of the things the founders of this country did not want.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered"

Thomas Jefferson

T^T




MrRodgers -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 7:54:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"The housing bubble burst in part, due to this sort of 'gaming the system'. "

When you blow bubbles, they burst.

The housing bubble was CAUSED by easy credit. There were never any regulations on to whom banks could loan money, how much or anything about the borrowers' credentials. The banks set all that up to keep from getting screwed.

The feds started getting their foot in the door with the VA and FHA loans. They did not insure the note but they did insure the payments in between the default, eviction and subsequent sheriff sale.

Later, under democrat regimes, the push was on for more low income homeowners. Low income is code for "Black". Before FHA, you never got a house with less than 20 % downpayment, and there was a significant increase in interest rates from a 15 year to a 30 year. You also needed to have X months total bills in the bank and sign a notarized statement that you did not borrow that money or the downpayment.

Then FHA comes along and you can get a house for 5 % down. Now let's figure this out, if you can qualify, by income, for a $250,000 house, and cannot come up with fifty grand down, how is that ? You been working this job for a while or else you wouldn't get the loan.

And then, we come to the point where they had ads on TV saying you can have a quarter million dollar house for about six something a month. But then that is variable rate. They knew the people wold be evicted eventually. they knew damn well their income would not rise to the occasion when the "introductory period" was over and the house payment went to $2,300 a month. THEY KNEW.

And this has been going on a long time, and it is one of the things the founders of this country did not want.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered"

Thomas Jefferson

T^T

First of all, while the housing bubble was caused by easy credit, that easy credit had nothing whatever to do with FHA or VA. The FHA (5% down w/qualifying ratios) and VA (no money down w/the same) loan criteria were around long (decades) before the recent housing bubble. (FHA and VA only insure a portion or set dollar amount, of the entire mortgage and do not guarantee any principal and interest specifically or beyond that amount)

Most of the fraudulent loans (NINJA, no income, no job, no credit) loans started by WAMU (Washington Mutual) and others were all what's called conventional loans that didn't even qualify under conventional terms. Those fraudulent loans were purchased by wall street banks to bundle into equally fraudulent MBS or mortgage backed securities that magically received a AAA rating for what was shit paper.

SO no, the govt. didn't 'come along' and require and that's require anybody to make any loans. Yes, some people were defrauded thinking they had a fixed rate loan and when the lender had actually submitted application for an adjustable rate mortgage that were also around long before the recent housing bubble.

Sorry man but you further demonstrate a certain lack of knowledge in general, when you conflate that with having anything whatsoever to do with the issuance of currency. It does not.





MrRodgers -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 8:02:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will pay nearly $3.3 billion to resolve state and federal claims that it cheated investors who purchased its mortgage securities, the bank announced Thursday.
The preliminary accord also includes an additional $1.8 billion for others in what the bank described as consumer relief, such as reduced loan balances for households whose mortgages were bundled into those securities, raising the total value of the settlement to $5.1 billion. News reports previously pegged the expected settlement at about $3 billion.
...
Goldman’s settlement, if finalized, would be the latest in a long string of deals struck between prosecutors and Wall Street over financial companies’ alleged wrongdoing in the years preceding, during and following the financial crisis. In addition to accusations that Wall Street duped investors who bought home loan bonds, banks have settled allegations that they helped drug cartels launder their illicit proceeds through the U.S. financial system; aided rich Americans who hid money abroad to avoid paying taxes; colluded to rig auctions involving municipal bonds; attempted to manipulate foreign exchange markets and key financial benchmarks; and violated U.S. sanctions against nations including Iran and Sudan.


Was it Goldman Sachs that sold MBS's to clients while the company itself was betting on the MBS's to fail? I very easily could be wrong on that count, but, one of the "big names" did it.

If that's the case, did the government go easy on GS?
    quote:

    The agreement in principle requires Goldman to pay $2.385 billion in civil penalties and $875 million in cash and provide up to $1.8 billion in relief to consumers.

    Bank of America in 2014 paid about $16.6 billion in a similar settlement with federal and state agencies, and JPMorgan Chase paid about $13 billion in 2013. In all, the banks have paid more than $40 billion in settlements to resolve claims investigated by the task force.

    All the mortgage settlements have included a certain amount of so-called soft money that is intended for loan modifications or foreclosure relief for consumers harmed by the bad mortgages. Some consumer advocates have raised concerns about how that money is allocated and how much comes directly from each bank’s bottom line. In the case of Goldman, the soft money is the $1.8 billion.


BoA: $16.6B
JPMC: $13B
GS: $5.1B





Sounds like a real sweetheart deal to me. GS cleaned the slate it seems with a few Bill. Notice there were no criminal charges.

Like I said years ago, the only difference between Madoff and wall street, is that he didn't get to 'negotiate' a settlement or get any bailout.




MrRodgers -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 8:11:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

This is Neoliberalism at its finest. Its called 'socializing losses'.
This link is good except for its title http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatizing-profits-and-socializing-losses.asp


What you are speaking of is the discorrelation between contribution and compensation. Like how bank CEOs made sure the ownership of the loans was passed on while collecting money for being the middle man in the transaction. Many investment firms work the same way. I got really into this topic a decade or so ago, so my terminology will be off. Basically, the higher ups in investment firms collect money aleverytime a transaction is made. It is the peons of these companies that are often investing their own and others money. But high enough up in the chain, they make money simply because people were trading regardless of whether or not the investors or brokers make money. Guaranteed profits. Discorrelation between risk and gain. One of the primary lessons of the Great Depression. Back then, there was a maximum of 10:1 ratio between investment and down payment on an investment loan. Market became inflated, and is it ironic or just tremendously telling that the stock market dropped to 9% and change of its previous value. During the Great Depression was caused by people who were not leveraged enough. Now it's banks litigating ways to be crucial financial players necessary for market exchanges without ever owning a portion.

Simply put, discorrelation between contribution and compensation is a corner stone to financial players making money and problems without risking their own hides

Well enough but the real problem is the entire culture of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Too big to fail should be too big to exist. BTW what you describe exists for all trading exchanges and platforms on wall street and for stocks, including OTC and pink sheets. They are called trading fees just as when I pay to make a trade. I owe the fee whether or not I make money on the trade.

The same thing is going on now as we write, with hedge funds. Hedge funds provide financial hedges against losses. If enough losses occur, the money isn't there. Law and regulators do not require enough money to be there, so we are looking at TARP II, more socialism for the rich.

Wall street profits creates billionaires and multi billionaires, while the taxpayer takes the risk. If there is another financial catastrophe in our future...there it is.




MrRodgers -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/15/2016 8:55:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

This is Neoliberalism at its finest. Its called 'socializing losses'.
This link is good except for its title http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatizing-profits-and-socializing-losses.asp

I am uncertain as to where you get the term 'neo-liberalism' for this phenomenon. Not surprisingly the term according to Wiki, has been bastardized by the right wing/capitalist (my words) when in reality it was used to describe the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined.

When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile. Those economic policies were hardly the original meaning of the term i.e., a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy. HERE

Rather Pinochet's govt. and reforms were much more along the lines and in fact were...fascist and the economy much closer to fascist capitalism. It is in fact an exercise by such a govt. that forces society at large to socialize risk while profits remained private. In fact indeed, that's why the CIA took out Allende and put Pinochet in power.

Nice that such a term could take hold and become the new economic spin of the 21st century during which so-called, free-market capitalism was the spin (oxymoron) of the 20th century. Nothing better than a profit, except a...risk free profit.




Phydeaux -> RE: As Expected, Here it Comes (1/16/2016 12:05:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers



SO no, the govt. didn't 'come along' and require and that's require anybody to make any loans. Yes, some people were defrauded thinking they had a fixed rate loan and when the lender had actually submitted application for an adjustable rate mortgage that were also around long before the recent housing bubble.




I provided quotes where under the CRA banks were required to issue 55% of mortage loans to LMI and MMI borrowers, and were encouraged to show flexibility and creativity in granting loans. 38% were required to be in redlined areas.

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

jefferson




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02