Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 289

Thread: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

  1. #81
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Lol ! You people are obsessed with Bush. Put down your George Bush doll and focus.

    I'm specifically addredsing issues that you seem to be ignoring. Debt obligations "purchased by the GSEs were purchased by .....the tax payer. We took the bath on that debt and that was mandated not by Bush but by slimey politicians in the 90s.

    The GSEs purchased **** loads of bad debt ? You think ? I think even the libs in Congress knew their policies were threatening to sink private lending institutions.

    Quotas for sub-prime debt purchased or otherwise still became part of a out of control Govt experiment that was mandated by DEMOCRATS. Quotas that were put in place and doubled down on by DEMOCRATS.

    CRA loans aren't the issue really.
    CRA given regulatory control in the early 90s over lending institutions in an effort to lower lending standards is the issue. HUD given regulatory control to force a quota system on the GSEs is the issue.

    Clinton allowing these loans to be securitized is the issue and if your going to talk about true origins then be objective and start at the begining.

    You get me ? I'm specifically speaking about who's respondible, who put the policies and regulations in place that started and perpetuated this mess.

    And its ALL on the Democrats.

    Whos policies allowed for the underwriting standards to be lowered ?

    If you say HUD didn't impose a quaota system on the GSEs then you would be lying.p

    If you say the GSEs didn't hold a majority of sub-prime debt when the inevitable happened you would be lying. Or Govt finacial institutions institutions in general you would be lying.

    If you say Barney Frank didn't advocate for the lowering of underwriting standards and then empower agencies like CRA and HUD to actually force the lowering of those standards then you would be lying.

    Libs always do this. Jump in to the debate at or around 2002 to pathetically blame Bush when Conservatives are trying to enlighten you guys and every one else on the ROOT CAUSE of the collapse.

    Hey, can you go get one of them GSE loans for no money down financed at 105% with an ARM now. ? Why not ?

    Did they do something about that ? Reinstate the standards that were institutionally driven down by politicians in the 90s.

    Yup.
    First of all, the beginning doesn't start with Bill Clinton; it starts in 1977 when the Community Reinvestment Act was passed and signed by Jimmy Carter. Second, get your Presidents straight. It was George H.W. Bush who signed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. It was this law which established regulatory evaluation requirements for CRA loans. It was George H.W. Bush who also signed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase these subprime mortgage backed securities as a percentage of their activity. So, your Clinton hate fest ends here. The fact that the GSEs eventually came into possession of the securities is irrelevant because if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't holding the bag then someone else would have been. Its not like these securities were created by them out of whole cloth. What matters is how they originated and they did not originate under CRA regulations. To say that this was a wholly Democratic fault is just more partisan balderdash.

  2. #82
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Without the seciritization of these sub prime loans which Clinton initiated there would have not been a sub prime collapse.

    Ask a liberal about the sub prime collapse and he'll blame Bush and the banks.

    Ask a Conservative and he'll explain how NOT to have another one.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Ratings agencies rated them highly because they expected GSEs to be backed by the full faith and credit of the US and in the end, they were
    That sounds like saying that a car is safe just because it is insured.

  4. #84
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Without the seciritization of these sub prime loans which Clinton initiated there would have not been a sub prime collapse.
    The purchase of securitized subprime loans by Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac was required by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, signed by George H.W. Bush. Of course, these were already being bought and sold in the market before then. You can't hide from those facts. His son didn't seem too sad about it either while he was boasting about home ownership on national television. There are two differences between you and I on this issue; 1. I know what I'm talking about. 2. I don't blame Presidents for irresponsible borrowing on the part of consumers and fraud on the part of firms like Goldman Sachs. The crisis was not as bad as it was because Freddie and Fannie bought subprime mortgage backed securities. It was a catastrophe because firms like Goldman Sachs were marketing subprime mortgage backed securities they knew beyond any doubt were toxic to their clients as good investments; and people believed them. They spread the damage over a wide area by deliberately setting their own clients up for failure and smugly pointed out it wasn't illegal. That is why the "conservative" so-called solution of limited regulation is a steaming pile of horse manure.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 02-08-13 at 10:17 PM.

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Rocketman: "It is true, CRA forced many bankers to lend money to people that normally would have been turned away."



    Fenton: "The CRA was given regulatory power in the early 90s to stop "redlining".

    Redling is actually what banks have been doing for the last 100 years or so to guarantee they don't crash and burn lending bums money.

    Its making sure the loan recipient had collateral, credit and a down payment.

    Discrimination" was checking to see if you had a down payment, good credit, good work history as everyone of those long held standards that the banks had been using for over a hundred years were tossed to the wayside during the sub-prime debacle.

    The people that cried discrimination called those standards "redlining". So liberal politicians forced banks and the GSE's to lower their standards, credit was free and easy and what happens when you lend money to someone with bad credit, a poor work history or low income happened,

    CRA in conjunction with HUD regulations that mandated quotas on the GSEs are actually the primary cause of the sub-prime debacle."

    Fenton again (later): "CRA loans aren't the issue really."



    Gathomas88: "They [CRA or HUD]enforced risky lending among the major players until it became a profitable trend and then encouraged everyone else to get in on the action afterwords in order to try and inflate the housing and credit bubbles."



    All these claims that the CRA caused the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers, but no one can point to the particular language in the legislation or regulations that says that banks must give loans to unqualified borrowers. No one has even cited a case where the law forced a bank to give a loan to an unqualified borrower. I say its bull**** motivated by racism and/or hatred of regulation, especially towards anti-discrimination laws.

  6. #86
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    First of all, the beginning doesn't start with
    Bill Clinton; it starts in 1977 when the Community Reinvestment Act was passed and signed by Jimmy Carter. Second, get your Presidents straight. It was George H.W. Bush who signed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. It was this law which established regulatory evaluation requirements for CRA loans. It was George H.W. Bush who also signed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase these subprime mortgage backed securities as a percentage of their activity. So, your Clinton hate fest ends here. The fact that the GSEs eventually came into possession of the securities is irrelevant because if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't holding the bag then someone else would have been. Its not like these securities were created by them out of whole cloth. What matters is how they originated and they did not originate under CRA regulations. To say that this was a wholly Democratic fault is just more partisan balderdash.
    Irrelevent ? Of course its irrelevent to you because it damning evidence. Someone else would have "held the bag " ?

    How ridiculous. No private entity on gods green earth would have taken on over a trillion dollars in bad debt. No group of private entities would have taken on that massive amount of debt.

    Only a Govt institution under mandate with access to trillions in tax payer funds could do something that stupid. Some one holding the bag ? Thats hillarious. Your'e Mr "Finacial" but you have to rely on make believe could have beens, would have beens to make your point.

    I'm talking about things that actually transpired. Do try to keep up.

    As for the mandates who pushed for those quotas ? Was it a Conservative ? A group of Conservatives ? Was that Politician allowed to exit Congress by writing a bill to reinforce his complete and total lack of integrity by blaming the banks with new regulations ? AKA Frank Dodd new banking regulations

    Quotas signed by any President to force the GSEs into more sub-prime debt is a bad deal but someone doubled down on that stupidity, increased those quotas.



    Under what administration were those quotas upped from 30% to 40 ? And 50 %

    Under who's administration were the securitization of that bad debt allowed ?

    Yea Clinton enabled the collapse big time, institutionalized it even.

    So enough with your Bush bashing who in fact in 2003 tried to reign in the GSEs.

  7. #87
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    Rocketman: "It is true, CRA forced many bankers to
    lend money to people that normally would have been turned away."




    Fenton: "The CRA was given regulatory power in the early 90s to stop "redlining".

    Redling is actually what banks have been doing for the last 100 years or so to guarantee they don't crash and burn lending bums money.

    Its making sure the loan recipient had collateral, credit and a down payment.

    Discrimination" was checking to see if you had a down payment, good credit, good work history as everyone of those long held standards that the banks had been using for over a hundred years were tossed to the wayside during the sub-prime debacle.

    The people that cried discrimination called those standards "redlining". So liberal politicians forced banks and the GSE's to lower their standards, credit was free and easy and what happens when you lend money to someone with bad credit, a poor work history or low income happened,

    CRA in conjunction with HUD regulations that mandated quotas on the GSEs are actually the primary cause of the sub-prime debacle."

    Fenton again (later): "CRA loans aren't the issue really."



    Gathomas88: "They [CRA or HUD]enforced risky lending among the major players until it became a profitable trend and then encouraged everyone else to get in on the action afterwords in order to try and inflate the housing and credit bubbles."



    All these claims that the CRA caused the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers, but no one can point to the particular language in the legislation or regulations that says that banks must give loans to unqualified borrowers. No one has even cited a case where the law forced a bank to give a loan to an unqualified borrower. I say its bull**** motivated by racism and/or hatred of regulation, especially towards anti-discrimination laws.
    No dude, CRA "loans" were NOT the issue. AGAIN, CRA having regulatory control over banks to force the lowering of underwriting standards WAS the issue.

    Keep your race baiting to your self ok. No one mentioned the color of your skin, made derogatory racist statements towards you or anyone else.

    Accusations of redlining initiated the policies and the regulatory control that caused the lowering of standards.

    Don't blame the messenger, blame the politicians that took advantage of those regulations and used those standards to nearly collapse the economy.

    Lending institutions prior to the nonsense made loans for almost a hundred years without tanking our economy.

    They did that by sticking to standards.

  8. #88
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Irrelevent ? Of course its irrelevent to you because it damning evidence. Someone else would have "held the bag " ? How ridiculous. No private entity on gods green earth would have taken on over a trillion dollars in bad debt. No group of private entities would have taken on that massive amount of debt.
    Take off the partisan glasses for a minute. Sub-prime mortgage backed securities were not a bad investment before the real estate bubble burst which is why hundreds of billions of dollars worth were privately being bought and sold in the market for decades. There are no make believes or could have beens. That is just reality. Fannie and Freddie were left with the lion's share because most firms saw the writing on the wall when home values started depreciating and started dumping the securities on their clients but it wasn't their loss which had the biggest impact. It was the failure of firms like Lehmann Brothers and Bear Stearns and the ruin of thousands of private individuals who had invested in these securities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    As for the mandates who pushed for those quotas ? Was it a Conservative ? A group of Conservatives ? Was that Politician allowed to exit Congress by writing a bill to reinforce his complete and total lack of integrity by blaming the banks with new regulations ? AKA Frank Dodd new banking regulations.
    One Senator can't make a bill into a law. On the Republican side, only John McCain actively fought against it and his proposals were shot down by Republican controlled committee. The Republicans get zero absolution. And give it up with Clinton. Bush II was out there stumping for subprime loans and boasting about home ownership and his father is the one who required Fannie and Freddie to purchase those securities in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    No dude, CRA "loans" were NOT the issue. AGAIN, CRA having regulatory control over banks to force the lowering of underwriting standards WAS the issue.
    Thats a ridiculous thing to say. How can you condemn the lowering of lending requirements while saying that its result was not the issue? Besides, 80% of sub-prime loans were issued by institutions over which CRA regulation didn't apply and it was those loans which were the predominant backer of the toxic securities. Those loans were a gravy train for lenders for a long time. The problem was never too much regulation; it was a lack of regulation of the mortgage companies engaging in predatory lending and firms engaging in unethical trading coupled with stupid consumers who bought things they couldn't afford.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 02-08-13 at 10:55 PM.

  9. #89
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    The purchase of securitized subprime loans by Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac
    was required by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, signed by George H.W. Bush. Of course, these were already being bought and sold in the market before then. You can't hide from those facts. His son didn't seem too sad about it either while he was boasting about home ownership on national television. There are two differences between you and I on this issue; 1. I know what I'm talking about. 2. I don't blame Presidents for irresponsible borrowing on the part of consumers and fraud on the part of firms like Goldman Sachs. The crisis was not as bad as it was because Freddie and Fannie bought subprime mortgage backed securities. It was a catastrophe because firms like Goldman Sachs were marketing subprime mortgage backed securities they knew beyond any doubt were toxic to their clients as good investments; and people believed them. They spread the damage over a wide area by deliberately setting their own clients up for failure and smugly pointed out it wasn't illegal. That is why the "conservative" so-called solution of limited regulation is a steaming pile of horse manure.
    Your focus on an investment bank when the GSEs bought and sold these same securities to and from Goldman and Sachs is a pile of horse manure.

    More mitigation and selective ignorance form you. Yea G and S wanted to bankrupt themselves.

    Investment banks TRADE securities. Throughput as they make commisions on trades win or lose.

    The trading of MBSs, Govt backed MBS, bundled with good loans and bad loans so their value could never be assesed finanaced the secondary market.

    What private investment bank had the abillity to bundle Govt backed securities anyway ?

    The GSEs bundled billions in MBS to sell off into the market and Investment banks were the one caught holding the worthless securities.

    Hell, the GSEs created the MBS. But you ignore that ok. Because it counters your nonsense.

  10. #90
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post

    S&P made fraudulent claims when they gave crap mortgages AAA ratings and they should be brought to justice for it. I am not unaware that the motivations for the lawsuit may be corrupt, but that doesn't make the case invalid. Its extremely common for the government to do the right thing for the wrong reason.
    I disagree. I'd rather the Government actually do the right thing. Going after S&P this single time for corrupt reasons does not solve the problem at all. It's possible S&P will not even get prosecuted if backroom deals are made, and even if they ARE brought in, so what? The system is still screwed.

    I'm fairly neutral on this act, because it does absolutely nothing to address the real problem.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •