Things are getting dark

[evince]

http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Articles.Detail&Article_id=125&Month=3&Year=2007


Despite those warning signals, in February of 2004 the leadership of the Federal Reserve Board seemed to encourage the development and use of adjustable rate mortgages that, today, are defaulting and going into foreclosure at record rates. The then-Chairman of the Fed said, in a speech to the National Credit Union Administration, said:

“American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.”

Shortly thereafter, the Fed went on a series of 17 interest rate hikes in a row, taking the fed funds rate from 1% to 5.25%.

So, in sum: By the Spring of 2004, the regulators had started to document the fact that lending standards were easing. At the same time, the Fed was encouraging lenders to develop and market alternative adjustable rate products, just as it was embarking on a long series of hikes in short term rates. In my view, these actions set the conditions for the perfect storm that is sweeping over millions of American homeowners today.

By May, 2005, the press was reporting that economists were warning about the risks of these new mortgages.

June of that year, Chairman Greenspan was talking about “froth” in the mortgage market and testified before the Joint Economic Committee that he was troubled by the surge in exotic mortgages. Data indicated that nearly 25% of all mortgage loans made that year were interest-only.

Yet, in December, 2005, the regulators proposed guidance to reign in some of the irresponsible lending. And we had to wait another seven months, until September, 2006, before that guidance was finalized.

Even then, even now, the regulators’ response is incomplete. It was not until earlier this month – more than 3 years after recognizing the problem – that the regulators agreed to extend these protections to more vulnerable subprime borrowers. These are borrowers who are less likely to understand the complexities of the products being pushed on them, and who have fewer reserves on which to fall if trouble strikes. We still await final action on this guidance, which I urge the regulators to complete at the earliest possible moment.

warning signs everywhere and Not a peep out of therepublicans in charge

 

[evince]

something tells me you DONT want attention right now?

could it be that you make a fool of yourself in this thread and dont want anyone to remember just how wrong you were?

 

[evince]

my mentor at the time was this guy called uscitizen.

man do I miss him.

tee hee

 

[Phantasmal]

Oh, do you need some attention, Cawacko? What's up, another night on the town, drunk and in the gutter?

 

[evince]

I dont always get desh.. you have been talking market gloom for like 2years now... probably longer. Its not going to happen. we will have corrections as we always do. The housing market correction will end at some point because shelter is a necessity.

In terms of your pro tax increase.. and for all of you that think 2.6T annual tax receipts isnt enough for a small populous of 300M people your simply flat out socialists. its an absurd amount of money for what the government job should be.

Now if you want to tax the righ more thats fine.. but give the cuts back to the middle class. Poor already get off easy. it should be a wash. There is absolutely no need to collect more taxes.


1 Last thing.. only a fool would think the 90's historic bull market was the result of a tax increase. Did the tax increase help balance the budget? perhaps.. but there would have been no balance without the tech boom. So unless u think there is another golden boom around the corner to eliminate the pain of a tax increase on the middle class then I wouldnt be looking for it.

powned you

 

[evince]

I'm not too worried about the economy-- first of all, the market may have taken a hit, but last week (I think, maybe two weeks ago) there was a day that set records for the amount of increase.

Not only that, but Desh likes to ignore that a great deal of economic success in the mid-late 90s came from Greenspan and the Fed., which Clinton frequently disagreed with but took the credit for Greenspan's successes.

powned you

 

[evince]

If it's one thing I've learned from years of attending real estate conventions and following markets is that many of the so-called "experts" don't know sh*t.

powned you

 

[evince]

A size 8 at 165 pounds? You know as much about women’s sizes as you do about politics you stupid shit, which isn’t surprising, what is surprising is that you run around here like you are oleg fucking cassini and the big expert on women’s clothing sizes. Your sexism , and the despicable manner in which you have treated desh on this thread, speaks very ill of you Top.

hey thanks

 

[evince]

The stock and housing market is not something you can look at short term.

In the grand scheme of things this housing market crash will just be a blip on the screen. Fundamentally the population will continue to grow and property will continue to increase in value due to demand.

what a smuck

 

[evince]

What is it with this board lately? The strong, intelligent, opinionated women (who happen to be all liberal ) are getting called fat@sses, b*tches, sluts, and c*nts.

Seriusly, Get a new gig, topper. Desh is a cool lady. If you don't like her opinions, get some new insults.

hey thanks

 

[evince]

what about this "slowdown" though ?
imho this one is going to make the last one look like a picnic in the park....

you were nearly always right my good friend

 

[evince]

LMAO.... The Bush team did this? Right Desh.

This policy was heavily promoted under your beloved dear leader Clinton. You think the economy didn't benefit from this practice then? Bush may not have done anything to stop it..... but neither did any single Dem in DC. BOTH parties could have done something, neither chose to do so. Bottom line though is that the bulk of the responsibility lies with the borrower and lender. The industry didn't "wring Americans dry".... by and large most of those people wanted more home/car/toys than they could afford and they got burned when rates went up. The industry got burned because they did not act to stop the consumer from taking out loans they should have known would blow up.

This is NOT to say there weren't any predatory lending practices, but the consumer has a responsibility to live within their means AND to know what they are purchasing.

the idiot trying to say it was CRA that caused this

 

[evince]

both Bush presidents are on record as to telling consumers to buy on credit to boost the economy.

right again

 

[evince]

What part of the fact that the explosion began in 1995 do you not understand? Of course it escalated when interest rates declined. But that had nothing to do with any policy the Reps or Bush implemented. It had to do with interest rates.

What part of the fact that you don't need to be in power to take action do you not understand? The Dems could easily have blanketed the news telling consumers why this was a bad idea and they could have used it against the Reps for not doing more with their power. But the Dems, like the Reps did nothing. I know you want to blame just the Reps, but that is idiotic.

What part do you not understand that the Dems at the state level also could have acted.... but did not?

AS I have said before, you are a party hack. You refuse to see that this situation was encouraged by BOTH parties. They BOTH touted it. Yet you want to blame the Reps because they were in power. Fine. Will you hold the same standards to the Dems should they indeed win the WH and maintain control of both Houses?

Will all the problems that occur under their watch be just their fault and not the fault of anything that happened prior to their taking office?

trying so hard to blame it on something else

 

[evince]

http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Articles.Detail&Article_id=125&Month=3&Year=2007


Despite those warning signals, in February of 2004 the leadership of the Federal Reserve Board seemed to encourage the development and use of adjustable rate mortgages that, today, are defaulting and going into foreclosure at record rates. The then-Chairman of the Fed said, in a speech to the National Credit Union Administration, said:

“American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.”

Shortly thereafter, the Fed went on a series of 17 interest rate hikes in a row, taking the fed funds rate from 1% to 5.25%.

So, in sum: By the Spring of 2004, the regulators had started to document the fact that lending standards were easing. At the same time, the Fed was encouraging lenders to develop and market alternative adjustable rate products, just as it was embarking on a long series of hikes in short term rates. In my view, these actions set the conditions for the perfect storm that is sweeping over millions of American homeowners today.

By May, 2005, the press was reporting that economists were warning about the risks of these new mortgages.

June of that year, Chairman Greenspan was talking about “froth” in the mortgage market and testified before the Joint Economic Committee that he was troubled by the surge in exotic mortgages. Data indicated that nearly 25% of all mortgage loans made that year were interest-only.

Yet, in December, 2005, the regulators proposed guidance to reign in some of the irresponsible lending. And we had to wait another seven months, until September, 2006, before that guidance was finalized.

Even then, even now, the regulators’ response is incomplete. It was not until earlier this month – more than 3 years after recognizing the problem – that the regulators agreed to extend these protections to more vulnerable subprime borrowers. These are borrowers who are less likely to understand the complexities of the products being pushed on them, and who have fewer reserves on which to fall if trouble strikes. We still await final action on this guidance, which I urge the regulators to complete at the earliest possible moment.

remember when

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

trying so hard to blame it on something else

trying so hard to prove you are not an idiot, but instead are reaffirming your own stupidity by reposting things that prove you are a partisan idiot.

 

[evince]

I dont always get desh.. you have been talking market gloom for like 2years now... probably longer. Its not going to happen. we will have corrections as we always do. The housing market correction will end at some point because shelter is a necessity.

In terms of your pro tax increase.. and for all of you that think 2.6T annual tax receipts isnt enough for a small populous of 300M people your simply flat out socialists. its an absurd amount of money for what the government job should be.

Now if you want to tax the righ more thats fine.. but give the cuts back to the middle class. Poor already get off easy. it should be a wash. There is absolutely no need to collect more taxes.


1 Last thing.. only a fool would think the 90's historic bull market was the result of a tax increase. Did the tax increase help balance the budget? perhaps.. but there would have been no balance without the tech boom. So unless u think there is another golden boom around the corner to eliminate the pain of a tax increase on the middle class then I wouldnt be looking for it.

11-14-2007, 09:14 AM




proof you right wing assholes denied a crash was coming

 

[cawacko]

11-14-2007, 09:14 AM




proof you right wing assholes denied a crash was coming

You should sue Hollywood Desh for making the Big Short and not including you in it.

 

[evince]

I dont always get desh.. you have been talking market gloom for like 2years now... probably longer. Its not going to happen. we will have corrections as we always do. The housing market correction will end at some point because shelter is a necessity.

In terms of your pro tax increase.. and for all of you that think 2.6T annual tax receipts isnt enough for a small populous of 300M people your simply flat out socialists. its an absurd amount of money for what the government job should be.

Now if you want to tax the righ more thats fine.. but give the cuts back to the middle class. Poor already get off easy. it should be a wash. There is absolutely no need to collect more taxes.


1 Last thing.. only a fool would think the 90's historic bull market was the result of a tax increase. Did the tax increase help balance the budget? perhaps.. but there would have been no balance without the tech boom. So unless u think there is another golden boom around the corner to eliminate the pain of a tax increase on the middle class then I wouldnt be looking for it.

11-14-2007
post 18

thanks fro helping me document it

 

[evince]

http://www.nysun.com/article/66268

How in the hell will the Rs blame this on the Dems?



After what Los Angeles money manager Arnold Silver called "a brutal three days," the question is: What now for the market?

A Wall Street superstar this year who runs Balestra Capital Partners, Jim Melcher, says he's "worried about a recession. Not a normal one, but a very bad one. The worst since the 1930s. I expect we'll see clear signs of it in six months with a dramatic slowdown in the gross domestic product."

Balestra Capital, a $350 million New York hedge fund, was up 3% for the past three market sessions, when the Dow Jones Industrials, spearheaded by widespread declines in financial stocks and fears of more billion-dollar-plus asset write-downs, tumbled more than 677 points, or about 4.5%. The Nasdaq fared worse, skidding about 7%, triggered by across-the-board declines in those fast-stepping technology stocks.

Balestra

11-14 2007