• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Approval Reaches Three-Year High as America Realizes It Could,.....

Conservative said:
More articles to destroy Vern's Opinions and "pretty" graphs

Keep it up, Vern, as I can post articles all day to destroy your opinions and lack of understanding of the financial sector as well as your strong desire to blame Bush for just about everything bad that has happened including the very poor Obama recovery.
Click to expand...

thanks again for the editorials Con but my "pretty graph" came from the Federal Reserve. See Con, when you have to resort to such childish insults it only proves I'm right. And the "pretty graph" proves the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. Yep, that's why you post the childish insult and try to quickly deflect to your editorials. You're not here to have an honest and intelligent discussion of anything. You're here to dishonestly deflect.
 
Vern said:
thanks again for the editorials Con but my "pretty graph" came from the Federal Reserve. See Con, when you have to resort to such childish insults it only proves I'm right. And the "pretty graph" proves the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. Yep, that's why you post the childish insult and try to quickly deflect to your editorials. You're not here to have an honest and intelligent discussion of anything. You're here to dishonestly deflect.
Click to expand...

The pretty chart shows only part of the story and not what created the bubble but of course Bush is responsible as always in your world. There would have been no bubble bursting had there not been a bubble in the first place. You see the end result not the cause and no matter how many articles and studies are posted you are only going to believe the end results never the cause.
 
Vern said:
Yes, it doubled and then was flat or declining 2000 to 2004. And mortgage defaults were stable for 5 years, 2000-2004. Defaults didn't shoot up because Clinton and 30 states clamped down on abusive subprime loans and Clinton's regulators didn't let banks stop checking the borrowers ability to repay the loan. Mortgage defaults shot up when bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending and his regulators let banks stop checking the borrower's ability to repay the loan. remember Bush's working group told you the "dramatically lower lending standards started late 2004".




I don't blame subprime specifically. I blame "dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004". its what Bush's working group said. And fyi, the data on subprime disputes "The rise in subprime mortgages can be directly related to the rise of household debt." Again the rise in subprime can be directly related to bush's policies. Debt from your chart shoots up in 1999. Subprime didn't shoot up until 5 years later after Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending and reversed the Clinton rule. So I'm not seeing the "subprime mortgages can be directly related to the rise of household debt" that you see.



I've read it. Its not that good a paper. It was written in 2006 and we've learned much more after the crash than before the crash. And you don't have to post papers for me to read. You only have to post a link to back up a point. If you want papers to read you simply have to go to my FAQ thread and you'll find dozens of excellent papers. I'm just not sure you grasp the significance of Bush's working group telling you

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

that " dramatic weakening " would be banks not checking the borrower's ability to repay the loan. Bush's OCC told you predatory loans were not a problem. Well this is exactly what a problem looks like

Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf

Literally half of all loans were No Doc. that's dramatic. when Bush's working said "triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages " they left out "and quickly spread to all mortgages".
Click to expand...

So by your standards I should not read nor consider anything as valid in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" because we have learned so much more about Nazi Germany since Shirer penned his book. Sorry but that dog just don't hunt. The paper is an excellent study on the rise of the sub prime mortgage market before people wanted to start tossing blame around. It incriminates every administration from Carter through to George W.

You say you don't solely blame the sub prime market for causing the financial crisis but then turn around and say it was solely Bush's fault for policies expanding the sub prime market. The two points are inconsistent.

Again the sub prime market and housing started to burst in 2006. About 18 months before the financial crisis. This again speaks against your pointing to the collapse of the housing a bubble as the sole cause of the financial crisis. It was not. There were multiple causes.

Deregulation of the commercial banking industry which had previously prevented banks from investing in the financial markets.
Deregulation of financial markets that allowed for derivative trading to expand into markets that were previously off limits.
Under funding of the regulatory agencies that monitored the financial markets allowing for improper stock and bond rating systems.
Over leveraging of financial institutions previously prohibited by regulations and monitored by regulatory agencies that no longer could enforce what few regulations were still on the books.
Subprime mortgage increases.
Bundling of subprime mortgages and derivative trading of subprime mortgage futures and defaults.
Deregulation that allowed a massive expansion of short selling of financial positions.

And I am probably missing a few other reasons. Again the W administration was at fault but not solely at fault. The sad history goes back to the Carter Administration through to W and every Congress that served between those years share the blame.
 
smb said:
So by your standards I should not read nor consider anything as valid in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" because we have learned so much more about Nazi Germany since Shirer penned his book. Sorry but that dog just don't hunt. The paper is an excellent study on the rise of the sub prime mortgage market before people wanted to start tossing blame around. It incriminates every administration from Carter through to George W.
Click to expand...
You can skip the analogies in the future and just make a point. There are statements in that paper that are incomplete at best if not wrong. And just so you know, you join a long list of people who post "here read this". No, you make a point and post a blurb from a link to back it up. so what exactly is in the paper do you think disproves anything I've posted? its a question directly related to your insistence that "its a good paper".

You say you don't solely blame the sub prime market for causing the financial crisis but then turn around and say it was solely Bush's fault for policies expanding the sub prime market. The two points are inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Go back and read my posts again. I blame "dramatically lower lending standards". Take a step back and look at the number of subprime loans shooting up starting 2004 and subprime mortgage defaults shooting up. Then remember No Doc loans shooting up at the same time. Why didn't mortgage defaults shoot up before 2005? because Clinton and 30 states clamped down on abuses in the subprime market. And don't forget, it quickly spread to all mortgages. And remember, the rapid rise in subprime in 2004 disproves your attempt to link subprime increase with household debt.

Again the sub prime market and housing started to burst in 2006. About 18 months before the financial crisis. This again speaks against your pointing to the collapse of the housing a bubble as the sole cause of the financial crisis. It was not. There were multiple causes.
Click to expand...
mmmm, the subprime MBS market collapsed in late 2006. a credit crunch started based on the collapse of the MBS markets. this caused the recession. Without the mortgage bubble, there is no credit crunch and no recession. Many things (and mostly from Bush) may have made the financial crisis worse but only one thing caused it, bad mortgages flooding the system. Banks loaned money to buy assets that decreased in value. mmmm, what allowed bad mortgages to flood the system?

Deregulation of the commercial banking industry which had previously prevented banks from investing in the financial markets.
Deregulation of financial markets that allowed for derivative trading to expand into markets that were previously off limits.
Under funding of the regulatory agencies that monitored the financial markets allowing for improper stock and bond rating systems.
Over leveraging of financial institutions previously prohibited by regulations and monitored by regulatory agencies that no longer could enforce what few regulations were still on the books.
Subprime mortgage increases.
Bundling of subprime mortgages and derivative trading of subprime mortgage futures and defaults.
Deregulation that allowed a massive expansion of short selling of financial positions.
Click to expand...

If that's what you believe, that's fine, now please back that up. Don't repeat it, back it up But lets look at home prices in one of the 4 bubble states. Please tell me how derivatives made that bubble. Tell me how anything Clinton Carter Reagan FDR did that allowed banks to give loans to anybody and what did Clinton Carter Reagan FDR do that prevented Bush's regulators from doing their jobs? and don't forget, back up your financial markets/ derivative narrative. again, I'm not looking for you to repeat it.
Nevada.jpg

the only thing that would cause prices to shoot up like that is a flood of buyers. Where did they buyers come from? Bush created them when he preempted all state laws against predatory lending.
 
UPDATE



America Loves Obama: Voters Prefer The President Over All 2016 Presidential Candidates
America Loves Obama: Voters Prefer the President Over All 2016 Presidential Candidates

By Sarah Jones on Sat, Apr 9th, 2016 at 5:42 pm

“…. President Obama's approval numbers have gone up recently and now voters say they prefer him to all 2016 presidential candidates.. And guess what... after Obama, the list leads with two more Democrats, Sanders and then Clinton, while the Republicans bring up the rear… “

“President Obama’s approval numbers have gone up recently and now voters say they prefer him to all 2016 presidential candidates.

In an Associated Press-GfK poll, 53% of respondents had a favorable view of Obama, more than any of the presidential candidates. And guess what… after Obama, the list is Democrat, Democrat, Republican, Republican, Republican……………….

…… Poll analysts pointed out that the approval for President Obama includes many issues, “including foreign affairs, immigration and, most notably the economy, where people said they felt slightly better about their own prospects and Obama’s stewardship.”

…. During Obama’s two terms as a President he has made history often, notably for things that helped people. He is presiding over record setting private sector job growth, his national push to raise the minimum wage regionally since Republicans would not even consider it in Congress is working, he got millions covered with healthcare insurance, an historic Iran deal, a global climate change initiative, and so much more………….

…. After the years long Republican Obamacare hysteria, they transitioned without taking a breath into Benghazi conspiracy tales. For all of their talk about the deficit and government waste, Republicans have spent $20.5 million chasing their fictional Benghazi stories — even after their hopes were dashed by evidence repeatedly. They’re still trying to sell their shred of a lie to the voters……………
ALSO SEE:
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/March-2016-AP-GfK-Poll-FINAL_Obama.pdf
AP-GfK Poll: Improved economic outlook boosts Obama approval
Pay Us Back! Republicans Have Spent $20.5 Million Of Your Money On Benghazi Probe

I have pointed out the President Obama’s approval rating has and will continue to improve…………. Folks are loo0king back at what he’s accomplished in the past 7 ½ years without and also the GOP actively attempting to sabotage and/or kill anything Obama…………. And with Faux Noise taking the negative (Omaha is the cause of all the problems of the world) spotlight off the President ...and focused on the 2016 election…………

Has given folks some peace of mind to reflect on the importance of President Obama………….
And in spite of all you nay-sayers and mudslingers ………………the President will continue in importance and approval long after yall’s sinfulness dies away….
 
Well con is going to be on full loopy tomorrow:mrgreen:
 
imyoda said:
UPDATE



America Loves Obama: Voters Prefer The President Over All 2016 Presidential Candidates
America Loves Obama: Voters Prefer the President Over All 2016 Presidential Candidates

By Sarah Jones on Sat, Apr 9th, 2016 at 5:42 pm

“…. President Obama's approval numbers have gone up recently and now voters say they prefer him to all 2016 presidential candidates.. And guess what... after Obama, the list leads with two more Democrats, Sanders and then Clinton, while the Republicans bring up the rear… “

“President Obama’s approval numbers have gone up recently and now voters say they prefer him to all 2016 presidential candidates.

In an Associated Press-GfK poll, 53% of respondents had a favorable view of Obama, more than any of the presidential candidates. And guess what… after Obama, the list is Democrat, Democrat, Republican, Republican, Republican……………….

…… Poll analysts pointed out that the approval for President Obama includes many issues, “including foreign affairs, immigration and, most notably the economy, where people said they felt slightly better about their own prospects and Obama’s stewardship.”

…. During Obama’s two terms as a President he has made history often, notably for things that helped people. He is presiding over record setting private sector job growth, his national push to raise the minimum wage regionally since Republicans would not even consider it in Congress is working, he got millions covered with healthcare insurance, an historic Iran deal, a global climate change initiative, and so much more………….

…. After the years long Republican Obamacare hysteria, they transitioned without taking a breath into Benghazi conspiracy tales. For all of their talk about the deficit and government waste, Republicans have spent $20.5 million chasing their fictional Benghazi stories — even after their hopes were dashed by evidence repeatedly. They’re still trying to sell their shred of a lie to the voters……………
ALSO SEE:
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/March-2016-AP-GfK-Poll-FINAL_Obama.pdf
AP-GfK Poll: Improved economic outlook boosts Obama approval
Pay Us Back! Republicans Have Spent $20.5 Million Of Your Money On Benghazi Probe

I have pointed out the President Obama’s approval rating has and will continue to improve…………. Folks are loo0king back at what he’s accomplished in the past 7 ½ years without and also the GOP actively attempting to sabotage and/or kill anything Obama…………. And with Faux Noise taking the negative (Omaha is the cause of all the problems of the world) spotlight off the President ...and focused on the 2016 election…………

Has given folks some peace of mind to reflect on the importance of President Obama………….
And in spite of all you nay-sayers and mudslingers ………………the President will continue in importance and approval long after yall’s sinfulness dies away….
Click to expand...

You continue to show that results don't matter and feelings trump reality. Those that like Obama must like the 19 trillion dollar debt, the low labor participation ratio, the stagnant GDP and job creation but what the hell results don't matter only how you feel.
 
Conservative said:
You continue to show that results don't matter and feelings trump reality. Those that like Obama must like the 19 trillion dollar debt, the low labor participation ratio, the stagnant GDP and job creation but what the hell results don't matter only how you feel.
Click to expand...

Boy oh Boy........This good news about the President sure toasts your tootie.........


How is it seem you're so invested in the President approval rate which seems to shake you out of your socks?
 
imyoda said:
Boy oh Boy........This good news about the President sure toasts your tootie.........


How is it seem you're so invested in the President approval rate which seems to shake you out of your socks?
Click to expand...

No, it shows the ignorance of those questioned because the results certainly don't deserve the ratings. Obama isn't running again but what really bothers me is the ignorance of his supporters. The next President is going to have a real disaster to clear up, much worse than Obama inherited because we were coming out of recession when Obama took office. You want to give him credit but actually ignore his results.
 
imyoda said:
Boy oh Boy........This good news about the President sure toasts your tootie.........


How is it seem you're so invested in the President approval rate which seems to shake you out of your socks?
Click to expand...

Apparently the people who voted in this poll are the ones who agree with the following:

Allen West: Top 10 Reasons To Vote Democrat In 2014 - Fox Nation

#10. Vote Democrat because you can’t wait for college football season to be delayed or cancelled because the student athletes are union employees.

#9.
I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits
of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government
taxing the same gallon
at 15% isn't.

#8.
I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a
better job of spending the money I earn than I
would.

#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine
as long as nobody is offended by it.

#6.
I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own
a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to
protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also
thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your
home in order to identify your body after a home
invasion.

#5.
I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions
of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row
inmates alive and comfy.

#4.
I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right
to free health care, education, and Social Security
benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those
who paid into it.

#3. I
vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not
be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need
to break even and give the rest away to the government for
redistribution as the Democrat Party sees
fit.

#2.
I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to
rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks
who would never get their agendas past the
voters.
..
And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think its
better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but
not drill our own because it might upset some endangered
beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't
care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other
countries.
Click to expand...
 
RCP of all Presidential approval polls from beginning to end W.Bush beats Obama.
 
Vern said:
You nailed it.
Click to expand...

Not sure what it is that Obama has done that creates this kind of loyalty but you certainly must be dependent on some of the "free stuff" he has offered. The results don't justify that kind of support but what the hell, you can indeed fool some of the people all of the time.

I find it interesting that you credit Obama for bringing us out of the recession with his stimulus plan yet blame Bush for the entire 2009 deficit so how can that be since the stimulus was mostly spending. If the money was spent then the deficit is Obama's and if it wasn't spent then the stimulus did nothing to bring us out of the recession. You have a serious credibility problem, Vern
 
Conservative said:
Not sure what it is that Obama has done that creates this kind of loyalty but you certainly must be dependent on some of the "free stuff" he has offered. The results don't justify that kind of support but what the hell, you can indeed fool some of the people all of the time.
Click to expand...

well Con, obviously you don't have a 401K or other stock investments, no need for a job or healthcare so obviously President Obama's fantastic results don't affect you.

I find it interesting that you credit Obama for bringing us out of the recession with his stimulus plan yet blame Bush for the entire 2009 deficit so how can that be since the stimulus was mostly spending. If the money was spent then the deficit is Obama's and if it wasn't spent then the stimulus did nothing to bring us out of the recession. You have a serious credibility problem, Vern
Click to expand...

I find it dishonest that you pretend I haven't explained it to you several times. You just don't get to pretend I haven't posted it but yet you do. You really shouldn't be allowed to post here.
 
Vern said:
well Con, obviously you don't have a 401K or other stock investments, no need for a job or healthcare so obviously President Obama's fantastic results don't affect you.



I find it dishonest that you pretend I haven't explained it to you several times. You just don't get to pretend I haven't posted it but yet you do. You really shouldn't be allowed to post here.
Click to expand...

Oh, but Vern I do have investments and understand that Obama had nothing to do with the stock market but rather the TARP bailout, QE, and record low interest rates is what has driven people to the markets. only a true partisan and someone who doesn't understand investing would claim differently

you have explained a number of things all false of the past couple years so we have come to expect no less from you. IF the stimulus brought us out of the recession how did it do that and if it did bring us out of the recession how is Bush responsible for all the deficit that year since the stimulus cost 842 billion dollars much of which was for shovel ready jobs thus money was spent?
 
First off this not a formal debating forum so your complaint about lack of annotations to claims being made is moot.
Second, I am loathe to so far into the weeds of an issue on such and informal debating forum but if you insist.
The link to the paper I gave is relevant. You may poo poo it all you want. What is shows is clear understanding of why the subprime market is expanding without any of the guilt and/or blame laying about the subprime market and its collapse. This is important because the people who wrote the paper saw the expanding subprime market as a net a good. They wanted to be sure that all the people who had anything to do with expanding the subprime market received due credit. That is why it is informative and important to what we are talking about.
So why is the derivatives market so important? Without the collapse of the derivative markets there would likely have been no financial crisis and just a mortgage crisis. The derivatives market was the link between the subprime mortgage market and the general financial markets as whole. This link was made through billions of dollars worth of CDS (credit default swaps) investments. The CDS were being used by many of the banks and other investors as hedge funds against the higher risk subprime mortgages. As investment in subprime mortgages went up so did investment in CDS. How was this possible you ask? The first step in this direction was under the Carter Administration with DIDMCA. This law was passed as result of Marquette v. First Omaha. It allowed several things. First it put credit unions, savings and loans and almost all financial institutions on par with banks. Second, and more importantly it ended usury ceilings on loans as well as deposits opening the door to have a subprime loan market.
The next step towards the precipice and a very big one came with the passage of the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act. This was passed under Reagan in '82. This allowed for all financial institutions to invest in financial markets. Something that was prohibited through Glass-Steagall as a result of the Great Depression. This allowed banks and all other financial institutions to begin playing in the subprime market and later as they didn't exist at this point the derivatives market.
Advance to 1989 and the FIRRA that, as result of the Savings and Loan debacle consolidated deposit insurance from three insurance funds to two. It also privatized the resolution of failed financial institutions. How did this contribute? With the consolidated insurance companies meant that there had to be tougher standards against failure. Once the ball started rolling with the subprime failures which led to defaults on the CDS market the insurance companies were forced to fail many financial institutions. This higher failure rate of financial institutions directly led to further tightening of the credit markets. The privatization of the resolution of these failed financial institutions by the Resolution Trust Corporation meant that the investors got the first bite off the apple after the insurance companies paid off the depositors. That left the FED holding bag further tightening the credit markets. This was done under poppy Bush.
Fast forward to 1994 and the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act. Passed under Bill Clinton this effectively ended any firewalls for banking between state lines. This truly nationalized the banking industry making their revenue explode and allowing them to over leverage themselves in both subprime mortgages and CDS's.
We then need to turn to the big two culprits. Gramm-Leach-Bliley and CFMA. Gramm-Leach-Bliley ended all Glass-Steagall protections against banks investing in financial markets. This opened the door to willy nilly investments by banks. This is the big culprit. Without this the banks would not have been so heavily invested in the financial markets and would not have lost billions of dollars in the collapse and the credit crunch would have never occurred. The CFMA is equally important because it removed all regulatory authority over the derivatives market. Causing massive over exposure where banks and investors were leveraging their risks through 3X, 4X, 5X etc CDS investments to the point that no one knew where all the money and risk was. Both of these passed under Clinton.
Now we finally move to W and the move towards voluntary regulation by the SEC. This allowed, with the help of the above stated deregulations, to the massive over exposure of the financial institutions. This was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back and did directly lead to the subprime collapse. But it wasn't the only reason by any stretch of the imagination.
 
imyoda said:
Of coursed these are ALL your original thoughts..........
Click to expand...

Of course that is why I used the quote function as well as reference link. Guess we know who is part of that survey group now
 
smb said:
First off this not a formal debating forum so your complaint about lack of annotations to claims being made is moot.
Second, I am loathe to so far into the weeds of an issue on such and informal debating forum but if you insist.
Click to expand...

A good analogy for me is a gun with bullets and someone to pull the trigger. If you pull the trigger with no bullets nothing happens but in this case the bullets were in the gun(the bubble including the CDS and other loans) and it is the loans made during the Bush that pulled the trigger and thus the bubble burst. Blame goes to the gun manufacturers, the bullet manufacturers, and the banks that helped pull the trigger.
 
smb said:
First off this not a formal debating forum so your complaint about lack of annotations to claims being made is moot.
Second, I am loathe to so far into the weeds of an issue on such and informal debating forum but if you insist.
The link to the paper I gave is relevant. You may poo poo it all you want.
Click to expand...

SMB, I'm not interested in your assurances. I thought I was clear on that. and I "poo poo" the paper because it has added nothing to the conversation other than you assuring me its a good paper.
So why is the derivatives market so important? Without the collapse of the derivative markets there would likely have been no financial crisis and just a mortgage crisis. The derivatives market was the link between the subprime mortgage market and the general financial markets as whole. This link was made through billions of dollars worth of CDS (credit default swaps) investments. The CDS were being used by many of the banks and other investors as hedge funds against the higher risk subprime mortgages.
Click to expand...

mmmm, just a mortgage crisis? when you put it that way how can I deny it? Just so you know mortgages and MBSs flowed through the financial system quite well all by themselves. and what your statement overlooks is that the first wave of failures were subprime lenders. They didn’t fail because of derivatives. They failed because their mortgages got so bad so fast that buyers were able to ‘put them back’ to the lender. I’ve already posted this blurb with the Early Payment Default chart.

Historically, mortgages that are underwritten well are unlikely to default in the first year of origination. Thus, the reports at the end of 2006 from lenders such as Ownit, New Century, and Novastar that an unusually high share of their loans were becoming delinquent almost immediately were a cause for alarm.

Just to reiterate, they said "cause for alarm". you should read that as "the start of the panic". And here's what drove the first wave of bankruptcies. This is specifically about New Century but applies to most if not all subprime lenders.

When a lender sells a mortgage it originates to investors it will often sign a re-purchase agreement to entice buyers. If the borrower defaults within the first few months the investor can go back to the lender and force them to buy the mortgage back.

The Rise And Demise Of New Century Financial | Investopedia

that’s not a derivative based failure. It’s a plain old fashioned lack of capital to meet expenses because they had to buy back their own mortgages. After the subprime lenders came the regular banks. WaMu and IndyMac leap to mind. Here’s the Inspector General’s report for IndyMac
https://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/ig/Documents/oig09032.pdf

don't see anything about derivatives. This was interesting though

However, it should be noted that a separate review by our office found that OTS allowed IndyMac to record an $18 million capital infusion from the holding company, received in May 2008, as though it was available on March 31, 2008. This allowed IndyMac to inappropriately report that it was at the well capitalized level as of March 31

Nothing like industry friendly regulators to keep us safe from out of control banks. So just to be clear, lenders and banks are collapsing not because of derivatives but because of their own mortgages. So thanks to the panic about the collapse of the MBS markets late 2006, early 2007, we get the wave of subprime lender bankruptcies. By the summer we get the credit crunch. By Dec we get the Great Bush Recession (though its not great at first).
 
Vern said:
SMB, I'm not interested in your assurances. I thought I was clear on that. and I "poo poo" the paper because it has added nothing to the conversation other than you assuring me its a good paper.


mmmm, just a mortgage crisis? when you put it that way how can I deny it? Just so you know mortgages and MBSs flowed through the financial system quite well all by themselves. and what your statement overlooks is that the first wave of failures were subprime lenders. They didn’t fail because of derivatives. They failed because their mortgages got so bad so fast that buyers were able to ‘put them back’ to the lender. I’ve already posted this blurb with the Early Payment Default chart.

Historically, mortgages that are underwritten well are unlikely to default in the first year of origination. Thus, the reports at the end of 2006 from lenders such as Ownit, New Century, and Novastar that an unusually high share of their loans were becoming delinquent almost immediately were a cause for alarm.

Just to reiterate, they said "cause for alarm". you should read that as "the start of the panic". And here's what drove the first wave of bankruptcies. This is specifically about New Century but applies to most if not all subprime lenders.

When a lender sells a mortgage it originates to investors it will often sign a re-purchase agreement to entice buyers. If the borrower defaults within the first few months the investor can go back to the lender and force them to buy the mortgage back.

The Rise And Demise Of New Century Financial | Investopedia

that’s not a derivative based failure. It’s a plain old fashioned lack of capital to meet expenses because they had to buy back their own mortgages. After the subprime lenders came the regular banks. WaMu and IndyMac leap to mind. Here’s the Inspector General’s report for IndyMac
https://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/ig/Documents/oig09032.pdf

don't see anything about derivatives. This was interesting though

However, it should be noted that a separate review by our office found that OTS allowed IndyMac to record an $18 million capital infusion from the holding company, received in May 2008, as though it was available on March 31, 2008. This allowed IndyMac to inappropriately report that it was at the well capitalized level as of March 31

Nothing like industry friendly regulators to keep us safe from out of control banks. So just to be clear, lenders and banks are collapsing not because of derivatives but because of their own mortgages. So thanks to the panic about the collapse of the MBS markets late 2006, early 2007, we get the wave of subprime lender bankruptcies. By the summer we get the credit crunch. By Dec we get the Great Bush Recession (though its not great at first).
Click to expand...

I await the day that you finally realize you aren't going to change anyone else's mind and yours is made up. There is way too much evidence showing a lot of players in this crisis but you want to focus on the end result not the factors leading up to the crisis. You do that a lot with other things as well including the stock market. You continue to show that you don't understand basic civics or even history but choose to believe partisan rhetoric and information. Try getting a grip o reality and understand that the bullets were in the gun when the sub prime loans under Bush were made and it was those loans that caused the bubble to break but didn't CAUSE the bubble. If there wasn't a bubble the sub prime loans made during the Bush term wouldn't have busted anything. Bubbles are created over time, not in a couple of years and in this case it can be traced back to the Clinton Administration for a start.
 


Vern, since you contend that the bubble started with the lending during the Bush Administration between 2006-2008 wonder what these people were talking about? Don't you find it amazing how they obviously are talking about 2006-2008 lending, right Vern?

Dean Baker identified the bubble in August 2002, thereafter repeatedly warning of its nature and depth, and the political reasons it was being ignored.[45][46] Prior to that, Robert Prechter wrote about it extensively as did Professor Shiller in his original publication of Irrational Exuberance in the year 2000.

The burst of the housing bubble was predicted by a handful of political and economic analysts, such as G. Edward Griffinin in his 1994 book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, and Jeffery Robert Hunn in a March 3, 2003, editorial.

in mid-2004 Richard F. Syron, the CEO of Freddie Mac, received a memo from David Andrukonis, the company's former chief risk officer, warning him that Freddie Mac was financing risk-laden loans that threatened Freddie Mac's financial stability

Other cautions came as early as 2001, when the late Federal Reserve governor Edward Gramlich warned of the risks posed by subprime mortgages
Click to expand...

Absolutely amazing how all these people were wrong and you are right and it was all Bush's fault. Just like Bush is responsible for the entire deficit of 2009 even though you give Obama credit for bringing us out of recession with his spending stimulus of 2009. Yes, Vern, you have a credibility problem
 
Conservative said:
Vern, since you contend that the bubble started with the lending during the Bush Administration between 2006-2008 wonder what these people were talking about? Don't you find it amazing how they obviously are talking about 2006-2008 lending, right Vern?



Absolutely amazing how all these people were wrong and you are right and it was all Bush's fault. Just like Bush is responsible for the entire deficit of 2009 even though you give Obama credit for bringing us out of recession with his spending stimulus of 2009. Yes, Vern, you have a credibility problem
Click to expand...


Why bother!..........He's never been wrong and if was would blame it on you.............a real True Believer:roll:
Not everything was Bush's fault except
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom