View Poll Results: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 21.43%
  • No

    33 78.57%
  • Dunno

    0 0%
  • I don't care

    0 0%
Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 176

Thread: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

  1. #101
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    That system had been in place and working just fine for 30 years under three different presidents before GB and his "let the banks govern themselves" policy came on the scene. Let business run itself and it's like a stampede - this time right over a cliff.
    In addition we often forget what Reagan did in deregulating the savings and loan 'banks'. It was a big deal in the Phoenix area. The deregulation, done without congress agreement, resulted in many people loosing their money, but a few people made a bunch and were allowed to keep it.

    addition: I have to note, given other posts, that the loans that S&Ls were making were to people with money, not the poor. And that money was going, via the home buyers, to the developers of things like reasonably fancy retirement communities that were never completed. There were close business relationships between the builders and the S&L.
    Last edited by OhIsee.Then; 06-04-12 at 03:37 PM.

  2. #102
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,490

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Here is MORE of the "causes" section that you cleverly "cherry picked" your quote from the middle of:

    In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[44][120] Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable-rate mortgages.[3]

    Although a number of politicians, pundits, and financial industry-funded think tanks have claimed that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis, detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that this claim is probably not correct.[1] [121] Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations.

    Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.[122] In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers.[123] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[124]

    From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.[125]
    I don't disagree that AMTPA allowed the making of "creative loans", but would have little impact without the enactments of the following two laws that I posted about in post #99:

    1. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ------ Basically the law that stipped the Glass Steagall Act, which was enacted as a result of banking, market practices that led to the Great Depression

    And another Bill Sponsored by Gramm

    2. The Commodities and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 ------ This law virtually wiped out all regulations on the Derivatives markets. As of now its estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 Trillion (world-wide) in shaky derivatives.

    When banks (and other types of Financial, Market, and Insurance institutions) were allowed to package mortgages and turn them into securities to be traded in the market place...and then also have the ability to create derivatives to sell to anybody who wanted to bet that the securities and mortgages would fail...that's were the true probable came in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Government and Subprime Loans
    Prior to the passage of AMTPA, banks were barred from making anything but the conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. AMPTA lifted those restrictions, giving birth to all the new and exotic mortgages that have so many borrowers in hot water today. For instance:

    Adjustable-rate mortgages, in which the interest rate becomes floating after a number of years.

    Balloon-payment mortgages, which have an outsized payment when the loan comes due.

    Interest-only mortgages, which require only repayment of interest (not principal too) during the first few years of the loan, only to hit borrowers with crushing monthly-payment resets once the new monthly payment kicks in.

    And worst of all, the option-ARM, which allows borrowers to underpay by as much as they want during the first few years. The awful upshot is the unpaid monthly interest gets tacked onto the size of the loan. So your $300,000 mortgage can turn into a $350,000 loan in a hurry, destroying any equity you have in your home.

    "One of the problems was that there were no substitute regulations to make sure these new mortgages didn't turn out to be exploitative," says McCoy.

    How Congress set up the subprime mess - Jan. 31, 2008

  3. #103
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    In addition we often forget what Reagan did in deregulating the savings and loan 'banks'. It was a big deal in the Phoenix area. The deregulation, done without congress agreement, resulted in many people loosing their money, but a few people made a bunch and were allowed to keep it.

    addition: I have to note, given other posts, that the loans that S&Ls were making were to people with money, not the poor. And that money was going, via the home buyers, to the developers of things like reasonably fancy retirement communities that were never completed. There were close business relationships between the builders and the S&L.
    S&Ls' weren't banks and should have never been allowed some of the abilities they were given. Not the same as the sub-prime catastrophe, though.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  4. #104
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    The problem with the free market system is that the realization of failure is after the crisis. Rather, the government should have a regulatory role so they are proactive in protecting the investors in these banks.
    I'd have to argue against the current regulatory system as you have people from the industry in question, with connections to business in that industry, presiding over the institution that it supposed to regulate the industry. (Example: Tim Geithner and Ben Bernake both used to work at Goldman Sachs) Thus you have people who are essentially helping out their former employers and those who join with them rather than actually being a regulatory body.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  5. #105
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Your reading was rather selective then, since the paragraph IMMEDIATELY preceeding your quote gave you the answer. Here is MORE of the SAME "causes" section (from MY source) that you cleverly "cherry picked" your quote from the middle of:

    [wiki quote for four paragraphs]
    None of which shows why twenty years after that fact this became a problem - and I'm just as sure you don't want to know why it became a problem then.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  6. #106
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    I don't disagree that AMTPA allowed the making of "creative loans", but would have little impact without the enactments of the following two laws that I posted about in post #99:

    1. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ------ Basically the law that stipped the Glass Steagall Act, which was enacted as a result of banking, market practices that led to the Great Depression

    And another Bill Sponsored by Gramm

    2. The Commodities and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 ------ This law virtually wiped out all regulations on the Derivatives markets. As of now its estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 Trillion (world-wide) in shaky derivatives.

    When banks (and other types of Financial, Market, and Insurance institutions) were allowed to package mortgages and turn them into securities to be traded in the market place...and then also have the ability to create derivatives to sell to anybody who wanted to bet that the securities and mortgages would fail...that's were the true probable came in.
    I couldn't agree more. I didn't realize they were two separate Bills but I did know when and why they were passed - and I started screaming the day they did it. I stopped screaming in Oct 2008. At that point it wasn't opinion anymore but public knowledge. Apparently not everyone is in the loop even now.


    To me the biggest change was letting the banks merge, though. Otherwise, the investment banks could have been left to rot on Wall St instead of US having to save their ass.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-04-12 at 03:58 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  7. #107
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,490

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I couldn't agree more. I didn't realize they were two separate Bills but I did know when and why they were passed - and I started screaming the day they did it. I stopped screaming in Oct 2008. At that point it wasn't opinion anymore but public knowledge. Apparently not everyone is in the loop even now.


    To me the biggest change was letting the banks merge, though. Otherwise, the investment banks could have been left to rot on Wall St instead of US having to save their ass.
    Actually they were two of the last pieces of legislation signed by "Clinton". Now the bills were "Republican" sponsored, but was strongly supported by Clinton's Treasury heads, FED...etc...who actually sold him on the ideas that these bills would be good for the country. Well, so they say. The reality is...both parties in our government are corrupt as ****. Money talks and bull**** walks, as they say.

    So the strange bedfellows of Dems and Republicans did another major fleecing of America and got away with it. In fact, they're still getting away with it. But...remember the recent JP Morgan multi-billion in losses. Yep - caused by the very same reasons of the 2000's crash. Oh well, why stop doing inappropriate things when its profitable and no consequences?

  8. #108
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,553

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    None of which shows why twenty years after that fact this became a problem - and I'm just as sure you don't want to know why it became a problem then.
    See the last paragraph of the post that we reference for a clue. The Fannie/Freddie crew backed 1/2 of the mortgages at the time of the bailouts. The taxpayers were on the hook EITHER way, by taking a bail-out hit or by allowing the banks to collect on the gov't backed mortgage insurance paper. The bail-out was actually far cheaper as many banks got far less than the REAL insured value that they could have taken. This allowed congress to better share the blame with the banks and cost the taxpayers far less as well. The bottom line is that congress loosened the lending rules far too much and many got burned by that gamble. All was well as long as a foreclosure got the bank at least their money back, by simply reselling the property, but when forclosure meant the bank was recovering a property worth far less than the note value, the jig was up, the paper was nearly worthless and the house of cards collapsed. Expect a very similar deal with all of that student loan paper out there soon, as much of it is backed by gov't insurance as well. Once interest rates are allowed to return to "normal" this will likely occur, since the taxpayers will soon tire of paying to keep them at 1/2 the real market rate.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-04-12 at 04:16 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #109
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    It came down to how derivatives and "special instruments" were allowed and then to run amok while the SEC sat on it's hands (through a couple administrations) and let it happen. It was a regulatory failure, partially the SEC and partially the fault of the administrations that ordered the SEC to stand down because, though there was an obvious problem, people were getting into houses and all was still peachy.

    Of course, when you borrow from Peter to pay Paul, Peter eventually comes calling.

  10. #110
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    Actually they were two of the last pieces of legislation signed by "Clinton". Now the bills were "Republican" sponsored, but was strongly supported by Clinton's Treasury heads, FED...etc...who actually sold him on the ideas that these bills would be good for the country. Well, so they say. The reality is...both parties in our government are corrupt as ****. Money talks and bull**** walks, as they say.

    So the strange bedfellows of Dems and Republicans did another major fleecing of America and got away with it. In fact, they're still getting away with it. But...remember the recent JP Morgan multi-billion in losses. Yep - caused by the very same reasons of the 2000's crash. Oh well, why stop doing inappropriate things when its profitable and no consequences?
    Well, I'm sure what we can do about overseas actions, which is why we need to split off the investment and savings banks again. Shutting down dozens of local branches and doing who knows what to local businesses and people because the investment division was placing bets overseas isn't right. I say split them and let the investment banks fail if they're stupid again. Plus they won't have the local banks feeding them anymore.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •