DescentBB

TheCope wrote:Watch it all just go away.

Gekko71 wrote:

TheCope wrote:Watch it all just go away.

Oh Lord - why do I bother?

TheCope wrote:

Gekko71 wrote:

TheCope wrote:Watch it all just go away.

Oh Lord - why do I bother?

Remember the S&L scandal? Yea... it just went away.

In the western world our whole lifestyle is on the back of others. You know it. Watch it all just go away.

Gekko71 wrote:

TheCope wrote:Watch it all just go away.

Oh Lord - why do I bother?

TheCope wrote:Watch it all just go away.

Spidey wrote:It’s ironic but, the other night on the News Hour they pointed out that the lightly regulated hedge funds are doing ok, the highly regulated investment banks are taking a hit and the most regulated Fannie & Freddie are doing the worse.

Will Robinson wrote:I don't think Obama wants to really go down the road of who's connected to the failed institutions because his own glass house is far from stone proof.
He's been in the congress for around one twentieth the time McCain has yet he's received that many times more the contributions from those failed institutions as McCain has...he also had at least one of the top executives from Fannie Mae running his campaign so the pot is calling the kettle black....Oh Dear!!! According to Obama and Newsweek I just made a racist comment didn't I?!?

tunnelcat wrote:Let's see, McCain's been in Washington for 26 years, 20 of them in the Senate and Obama's been in Washington for 4 years. Who's had more time to schmooze with the lobbyist culture in Washington and get tainted? Who has more connections to lobbyists now? Could it be ... aaaaaaah ..... McCain?

tunnelcat wrote:So why do you think that is? Maybe because they get to dump all their really bad mortgage investments into Uncle Sam's lap with this bailout?

Maybe because they weren't bound by the same rules as other investors or banks? Fannie and Freddie had to play by the rules while the Hedge Funds and other derivative speculators got to gamble and steal for massive profits. (The U.S. funds, not foreign ones. They get hosed in the bailout.) Hmmmmmm. Out of our pockets and into theirs. Trickle UP economics! This all blew up because of an uneven playing field between the teams, cheating and massive greed. By the way, it's the MORTGAGE BANKS fault for lending to noncredit worthy people. They didn't perform their due diligence when lending the money in the first place! You don't lend money to people that want to buy a house that have LITTLE OR NO MONEY!

STUPID IDIOTS!

Whether we as a nation like it or not, racism is going play a major role in this election, especially among white male voters. Even if people are asked whether they think race plays an important role when polled about it, VERY few people will have the balls to admit they are racist. Personally, I hope the intelligent and educated African American wins over the senile old White American for once.

tunnelcat wrote:You claim Obama has Franklin Raines from Fannie Mae? Not quite true. He's never even been on Obama's team,....

Let's see, McCain's been in Washington for 26 years, 20 of them in the Senate and Obama's been in Washington for 4 years. Who's had more time to schmooze with the lobbyist culture in Washington and get tainted?...

Gekko71 wrote:This recent event however has deleted trillions from US, Australian, UK, Canadian, New Zealand, Russian, Japanese, Chinese and Korean stock exchanges - just to name a few.

Lothar wrote:That imaginary money made its way through a lot of systems, and a lot of people (through no fault of their own) are seeing their imaginary gains disappear. It's not as though any real product was actually destroyed by this process -- it's not like a hurricane wiping out billions of dollars of buildings, equipment, and other property.

CNN wrote: A new study that surveyed racial attitudes suggests that racial prejudices could tip the balance in the upcoming presidential election.

A poll finds a small percentage of voters said they may turn away from Sen. Barack Obama because of his race.

If there were no racial prejudice among voters, Sen. Barack Obama would receive about 6 percentage points more support, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll, designed in partnership with Stanford University.

The results suggest that 40 percent of white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, including more than a third of white Democrats and independents. A small percentage of voters -- 2.5 percent of those surveyed -- said they may turn away from Obama because of his race.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey also indicates that race could play a big role in November. Asked if race would be a factor in their vote, 37 percent of respondents said yes. But of that group, many are Republicans who are not likely to vote for any Democrat, and some are Democrats who may vote for Obama because of his race.

Of the 8 percent of Democrats who told CNN they plan to vote for Obama's GOP rival, Sen. John McCain, half said race was a factor.

Beowulf wrote:A finance joke...

An entrepreneur walked into a bank in New York City and asked for the loan officer. He needed to borrow $5,000 for two weeks, but he was not a depositor of the bank. The loan officer said that the bank would need some form of security for the loan, so the entrepreneur handed over the keys to a new $250,000 Ferrari out front and they could hold it until the loan was paid off in two weeks. The title was produced and everything checked out, the car was driven into the bank's underground garage and parked, and the loan granted at 12%.
Later, the bank's president and officers all enjoyed a good laugh on the entrepreneur for using a $250,000 Ferrari as collateral for a $5,000 loan.

Two weeks later, the entrepreneur returned, repaid the $5,000 plus interest of $23.07. The loan officer said, “Sir, we are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely, but we are a little puzzled. While you were away, we checked you out and found that you are a multimillionaire. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow $5,000?”
The entrepreneur replied: “Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $23.07 and expect it to be there when I return?”

Spidey wrote:“There's a saying / truism in my country - whenever the US markets sneeze, the Australian markets catch a cold. Recent increases in trade with China will insulate Aust. to some extent - but there's still a lot of pain to go round yet.”


Watch out Gekko. There are a lot worst virions coming out of that part of the world.

dissent wrote:wrong thread, Goob. Mods?

As someone who owns both an investment bank and commercial banks, and also runs a hedge fund, I have sat front and center and watched as this mess unfolded.

Gooberman wrote:Read the post above mine.

tunnelcat wrote:And yes, I'm allowed to play the ageism card. ...

Asked about the reports of Mr. Davis’s role, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that during the time when Mr. Davis ran the Homeownership Alliance, the senator had backed legislation to increase oversight of the mortgage companies’ accounting and executive compensation. The legislation, however, did not seek to change their anomalous structure as private companies with federal support.

snoopy wrote:So, how about this new, huge proposed bail-out?

Things seem to be getting worse still...

So, the question of me, as a young non-homeowner is, is now that time to buy, or do I wait for things to settle down more? (My real estate agent was trying to tell me that the market was going to take off again.... and boy do I hope it doesn't.... Normal people can hardly afford homes as it is, after the crash.)

Bosn wrote: The old Bosn has a way

Works for me. What do you think?

Now here's a bail out plan that works!

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.`

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in "We Deserve It Dividend".

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000
bona fide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 ± counting every man, woman
and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00 each.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a
"We Deserve It Dividend".

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college - it'll be there

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs,

Invest in the market - capital drives growth.

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves.

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks
who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company
that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out
a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed
by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
"We Deserve It Dividend" more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
Washington DC .

And remember, this plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because
$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

You don't want to even hear what I think about the stupid mortgage companies
that loaned out billions of dollars to people who they knew had no way of paying
back the loans, with both sides of the equation interested in one thing...fast money.
But it didn't work, and now we're supposed to bail out those idiots too???

Capm wrote:This was posted to our forums by one of our members, I thought it was a pretty good idea:

Bosn wrote: The old Bosn has a way
...
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in "We Deserve It Dividend".

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00 each.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a
"We Deserve It Dividend".
...

lying hypocrite Barney Frank wrote:''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.