It's a Middle-Class Boom

Kushinator said:

Did you not see post #3?



It's what predicated MW's response.

Furthermore, the OP failed to source any of the statistics he used to make his case.

Furthermore, these statistical sets are annually released (March).

IMO, the nonsense spouted from the OP and Vance is far more deserving of critique than what MW posted. You're new here, and so i don't expect you to know that the overwhelming majority of conservative/GOP posters did an about face regarding their views on stock market performance and the financial well being of the middle class.

Click to expand...

You obviously don't know that much about economics. That when more people have money, they chase more goods with more dollars and goods rise in price. Oh to go back to the days of BO when inflation was lower than today (except for when BO instituted federal programs to stimulate the economy). BO was successful in creating jobs, no?:lamo

Kushinator said:

I don't think you understand what's the issue. Stephen Moore, being the partisan hack that he is, will not be able to make this type of argument using official data, and so he is sourcing Sentier Research's unofficial data while masquerading it as census data. Must i explain to you why this is invalid? Your ignorance is on full display. Median family income figures are released each March, meaning the data that was released in March 2019 was for 2018. We won't know what income growth looks like for 2019 until after 2019 (March 2020).

Trump supporters are a desperate folk.

Click to expand...

Don't you just love it when this table doesn't even have one, single negative number on it? I do.

You hate Trump. I get it. You probably also hate anything that says people are doing well during Trump's tenure. The good news for you is that Trump will be out of office n about five years.

Of course, then there's Junior and Ivanka. But that's for later.

It's hard to find economic indicators that indicate anything bad. Since the Democrat-Socialists have been campaigning, though, people have gotten less optimistic. Go figure.

I understand that there are even people who are buying My Pillows. If they say it on TV, people listen.

That said, After the recent months of the Democrat-Socialists saying everything sucks as they campaign, people are wondering what they're talking about. Soon, most will get used to the static and ignore them again.

Oh, well... You can just keep enjoying yourself watching videos of Schiff and Pelosi. In the mean time, I'll just keep enjoying the ongoing Economic Boom.


Personal Income and Outlays, August 2019 | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

code1211 said:

Don't you just love it when this table doesn't even have one, single negative number on it? I do.

You hate Trump. I get it. You probably also hate anything that says people are doing well during Trump's tenure. The good news for you is that Trump will be out of office n about five years.

Of course, then there's Junior and Ivanka. But that's for later.

It's hard to find economic indicators that indicate anything bad. Since the Democrat-Socialists have been campaigning, though, people have gotten less optimistic. Go figure.

I understand that there are even people who are buying My Pillows. If they say it on TV, people listen.

That said, After the recent months of the Democrat-Socialists saying everything sucks as they campaign, people are wondering what they're talking about. Soon, most will get used to the static and ignore them again.

Oh, well... You can just keep enjoying yourself watching videos of Schiff and Pelosi. In the mean time, I'll just keep enjoying the ongoing Economic Boom.


Personal Income and Outlays, August 2019 | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Click to expand...

That's quite the deflection. Instead of addressing a single thing you've decided to quote, you play the victim card.

This thread is a testament to the inferiority complex that's manifest itself throughout the GOP. It's pathetic.

code1211 said:

Just thought I'd post a little reminder why Trump will win in a landslide in 2020.

These are "WOW" type numbers of improved and improving income numbers for the common man.

As the article says, the Democrats are lying about the economy. I will add to this observation that their willing lap dogs in the media are helping them to spread their lies.

It's a Middle-Class Boom | RealClearPolitics

<snip>
" [Donald] Trump's economy is great for billionaires, not for working people," Sanders likes to say.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi grouses that under the Trump agenda, "the rich get richer, and everyone else is stuck paying the bill."
<snip>

But not a word of this is true, according to new Census Bureau data on the incomes of America's middle class.

<snip>

This study by former Census Bureau researchers and now statisticians at Sentier Research has found gigantic income gains for the middle class under Trump.

The median or average-income family has seen a gain of $5,003 since Trump came into office.

Median family income is now (August 2019) $65,976, up from about $61,000 when he entered office (January 2017).
<snip>

Under George W. Bush, the household income gains were a little over $400 in eight years, and under Barack Obama the gains were $1,043.

That was in eight years for each.
<snip>

The tax cut also added an additional $2,500 to a typical family of four's after-tax incomes.

So after taking account of taxes owed, the income of most middle-class families is up closer to $6,000 in the Trump era.
<snip>

Click to expand...

God you Trumpists are pathetic.

When Obama took over in 2009, the median income was 55683 and because of the great recession the median income continued to shrink as it had done since 2008. By 2012 it hit its lowest point of 53331 and started to climb again thanks to Obamas policies. By the time he left office 5 years later the number had risen to 61372 which is a change of 8000 from the low point.

Sent from my Honor 8X

Kushinator said:

That's quite the deflection. Instead of addressing a single thing you've decided to quote, you play the victim card.

This thread is a testament to the inferiority complex that's manifest itself throughout the GOP. It's pathetic.

Click to expand...

Is that what you got out of that?

The DJIA just closed at ANOTHER record close yesterday. That makes 100 in trump's first term after a run up in the DJIA of a little over 50% in the first three years of his FIRST TERM.

In passing, Bush and Obama both had significantly fewer record closes in their first terms. They are tied at zero, zip, nada, none.

I was only trying to figure out why you are so deluded in your thinking. If it's not the onslaught of negativity from the propagandists, I don't know what it is.

Why are you impervious to good news?

PeteEU said:

God you Trumpists are pathetic.

When Obama took over in 2009, the median income was 55683 and because of the great recession the median income continued to shrink as it had done since 2008. By 2012 it hit its lowest point of 53331 and started to climb again thanks to Obamas policies. By the time he left office 5 years later the number had risen to 61372 which is a change of 8000 from the low point.

Sent from my Honor 8X

Click to expand...

With respect for your derangement, the numbers are the numbers. It required 5 years to get back to the peaks reached before the Financial Bubble burst.

Obama's Policies DID have an impact. They created and prolonged the longest, slowest recovery from any recession since the Great Depression. His "Stimulus Bill" delayed some economic impacts for a year as he bribed, paid back and paid off supporters.

He was searching for a magic wand. Turns out, Trump had it all along. Go figure.

code1211 said:

With respect for your derangement, the numbers are the numbers. It required 5 years to get back to the peaks reached before the Financial Bubble burst.

Obama's Policies DID have an impact. They created and prolonged the longest, slowest recovery from any recession since the Great Depression. His "Stimulus Bill" delayed some economic impacts for a year as he bribed, paid back and paid off supporters.

He was searching for a magic wand. Turns out, Trump had it all along. Go figure.

Click to expand...

LOL talk about derangement... Trump is running on the coattails of the Obama recovery and is doing his best to destroy that recovery. Yes it was the slowest recovery because of the party of "NO ****ing way am I going to work with a black man" refused to work with Obama on anything. The fact that you are using the same numbers to manipulate it into something that did not happen by ignoring the facts, is just a classic example of how low and stupid the American conservative has become. Once the GOP was the well educated pragmatic fiscal responsible party.. now the GOP is a bunch of fanatical lying often racist anti Semitic trash that will do anything to remain in power.

Facts are simple, and I am 100% correct. What Trump has done is almost nothing compared to Obama. Trump took over a booming economy and it has continued so far to do so and yet he has managed to increase the US deficit massively....

Mycroft said:

{sarc}

I am a Trump hater and I don't believe those made up numbers...and even if those made up numbers are true, Obama did it...not Trump.

{/sarc}

Click to expand...

Well, Obama did do it. Aside from self destructive trade wars that sow division among our allies and weaken us on the world stage, and yet another tax cut for the investor class, Trump’s economic policy is the same as Obama’s.

Of course, Trump is running towering deficits. And all the “fiscal conservative” ex tea partiers can’t get enough.

code1211 said:

Is that what you got out of that?

Click to expand...

Is your intent strictly to cheerlead? The OP was based on partisan hackery, bogus statistics, and a general ignorance of the economic data cited.

Now that the Trump administration has failed to live up to its promises and predictions, a series of shifts and cherry picks are all we can expect.

Are you actually trying to tie stock market performance to the economic well-being of the middle class?

PeteEU said:

LOL talk about derangement... Trump is running on the coattails of the Obama recovery and is doing his best to destroy that recovery. Yes it was the slowest recovery because of the party of "NO ****ing way am I going to work with a black man" refused to work with Obama on anything. The fact that you are using the same numbers to manipulate it into something that did not happen by ignoring the facts, is just a classic example of how low and stupid the American conservative has become. Once the GOP was the well educated pragmatic fiscal responsible party.. now the GOP is a bunch of fanatical lying often racist anti Semitic trash that will do anything to remain in power.

Facts are simple, and I am 100% correct. What Trump has done is almost nothing compared to Obama. Trump took over a booming economy and it has continued so far to do so and yet he has managed to increase the US deficit massively....

Click to expand...

What facts tell you that the Obama recovery was not the slowest and longest since the Great Depression?

What facts tell you that every measurable indicates that wages, household income and personal wealth are not at historic, in some cases all time, highs?

You have nothing but your hatred of Trump.

Playing the Racist Card again? You are one of many that identify any racist as the person winning an argument with a Liberal.

Coattails of Obama? You're asserting that Obama's plan for recovery included Trump getting elected, trashing all Obama regulations, dumping every policy he enacted and, in effect, erasing his Presidency's existence. Obama must be a genius!

MrWonka said:

A right wing hit piece with no link to the original study being cited. Show me the original study and we'll talk.

Here's something that is actually worth looking at...

Majority say they are not better off financially under Trump: poll | TheHill

Click to expand...

The majority of voters in big democrat urban strongholds may well not be fairing as well as Americans in the rest of the country. Maybe democrats should look at their own democrat leaders in those areas as being at least somewhat responsible for their depressed situations?

code1211 said:

What facts tell you that the Obama recovery was not the slowest and longest since the Great Depression?

Click to expand...

And you forget how bad the recession was and how much the party of NO aka the GOP did to prevent anything Obama did.

What facts tell you that every measurable indicates that wages, household income and personal wealth are not at historic, in some cases all time, highs?

Click to expand...

Yes that is a fact, but they also reached all time highs under Obama... or you forget that bit?

You have nothing but your hatred of Trump.

Click to expand...

Your blind loyalty clouds your judgement.

Playing the Racist Card again? You are one of many that identify any racist as the person winning an argument with a Liberal.

Click to expand...

The truth hurts.

Coattails of Obama? You're asserting that Obama's plan for recovery included Trump getting elected, trashing all Obama regulations, dumping every policy he enacted and, in effect, erasing his Presidency's existence. Obama must be a genius!

Click to expand...

The US economy was already booming when Trump was elected. So yes Trump is and has been riding on the coattails of the Obama recovery.

Kushinator said:

Is your intent strictly to cheerlead? The OP was based on partisan hackery, bogus statistics, and a general ignorance of the economic data cited.

Now that the Trump administration has failed to live up to its promises and predictions, a series of shifts and cherry picks are all we can expect.

Are you actually trying to tie stock market performance to the economic well-being of the middle class?

Click to expand...

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your words for no other reason than to change the meaning and then presents it as if it was not changed?

code1211 said:

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your words for no other reason than to change the meaning and then presents it as if it was not changed?

Click to expand...

You're not addressing the post you've quoted. The OP was misguided and based on incomplete data. Furthermore, you displayed ignorance of the data that was sourced, digging yourself deeper with every ensuing response.

Why mention stock market performance in a thread where you began talking about median family income???

code1211 said:

Obama's Policies DID have an impact. They created and prolonged the longest, slowest recovery from any recession since the Great Depression. His "Stimulus Bill" delayed some economic impacts for a year as he bribed, paid back and paid off supporters.

Click to expand...

Obama's policy had little to do with the slow recovery from the last recession. One very important detail about this recession is that it occurred following a financial crisis. Very specifically, we're talking about the balance sheets of many large institutional investors being filled with overvalued bond-like derivative securities whose underlying were pools of illiquid credit contracts (mortgage, consumer loans, etc.). When housing prices fell, some of the riskier-than-stated underlying contracts became worthless as credit delinquency rates increased. Losses forced margin calls, fire sales ensued and large century-old investment banks went bankrupt or were bought by competitors... We have a lot of models today that describe this type of dynamic and all of them have one thing in common: the deleveraging process in the private sector is slow, very slow. Brunnermeier and Sannikov have models like this with bank-run like dynamics. Most of the time, you get recessions and expansions, but every now and then calm settles in and the financial sector increases its leverage in a way that makes a very large crash likelier. When things fall apart, so much value has been lost that the financial sector is undercapitalized and can't raise the funds it needs to function properly. Those rarer events last longer than others.

There's in fact a lot of empirical evidence that this picture is a good one. I know Rogoff has worked on this at the international level and he did find that financial crises tend to precede deeper recessions and recoveries are slow. A much more recent piece of work comes from
Adrian, Boyarchenko, and Giannone. In the US economy, they find evidence of what we call "multimodality" in the conditional distribution of output growth. The idea is that the economy spends most of its time showing the same kinds of growth, but every now and then when financial conditions become tight, it is also likely to spend a lot of time showing depressed growth rates. If you drew the distribution, you'd find "two mountains" instead of just one around the average: one around the average and a much small one closer to the left tail (very low, even negative, growth rates). Their paper is here, if you're curious. Just to be clear, if you simulate the models of Brunnermeier and Sannikov or other bank-run like models, you would get that same picture with a bimodal conditional distribution of growth rates.

I don't think you would have made a big dent into it by gutting regulations. Tax cuts would have likely had a similar effect to spending, as long as it drove the deficit up. The ideal would have not been a series of bailouts, but public infrastructure. That unambiguously would have hastened the recovery, though some work on deficit spending suggests that the timing of additional spending is important and I suspect the reaction of the US government is bound to be pretty delayed. To give you an idea, data on GDP is released every quarter with a month of delay, the estimates are adjusted each quarter thereafter until up to 4 or 5 quarters later. The final value you see on the Federal Reserve's website versus the first estimate you would get when it comes out can show a difference as large as a whole standard deviation and it's worst around crises. It wasn't clear until months into the mess how big it would turn out to be and you need a solid case to get officials to move fast.


As for the bribing comment, some of it might have been unavoidable short of nationalizing some businesses. That's the "too big to fail" problem: large institutions concentrate risks and coordinate reactions in a way that can make them pose systemic risks. As nothing changed, I'd bet they will be bailed out again comes the next mess. The same kinds of executives will pay themselves record income with taxpayer money while laying off ordinary Joes, in spite of the fact their idiocy cost millions of innocent people billions in asset value. I don't think a single president would have been in a position to do anything about that, again short of just taking over the failing business. Things are still what they were in the 2000s: profits are private and large losses are insured by taxpayers -- except they don't pay a dime for that insurance.

PeteEU said:

And you forget how bad the recession was and how much the party of NO aka the GOP did to prevent anything Obama did.



Yes that is a fact, but they also reached all time highs under Obama... or you forget that bit?



Your blind loyalty clouds your judgement.



The truth hurts.



The US economy was already booming when Trump was elected. So yes Trump is and has been riding on the coattails of the Obama recovery.

Click to expand...

Well, you have a great imagination. I'll give you that.

I don't remember exactly. Trump addressed the American Black Population and asked them to vote for him because the Democrat-socialists had been lying to them. Trump asked "What have you got to lose?"

At that point in history, was Black Unemployment at the lowest point since the 60's. If yes, why didn't Hillary point that out? Can you link to Hillary pointing that out?

You hate Trump, I get it. You demonstrate it with every venomous comment you make.

You demonstrate the same hate for anyone who does not also hate Trump as you do using the same method.

Seems like carrying all that hate around would be tiring.

Kushinator said:

You're not addressing the post you've quoted. The OP was misguided and based on incomplete data. Furthermore, you displayed ignorance of the data that was sourced, digging yourself deeper with every ensuing response.

Why mention stock market performance in a thread where you began talking about median family income???

Click to expand...

There is more than one economic indicator.

Some are performance based and others are predictive.

It's a little like the weather. A nice day can be affected by temperature, wind speed, precipitation, what happened yesterday and what might happen tomorrow.

You are now free to ask why I started talking about the weather.

TheEconomist said:

Obama's policy had little to do with the slow recovery from the last recession. One very important detail about this recession is that it occurred following a financial crisis. Very specifically, we're talking about the balance sheets of many large institutional investors being filled with overvalued bond-like derivative securities whose underlying were pools of illiquid credit contracts (mortgage, consumer loans, etc.). When housing prices fell, some of the riskier-than-stated underlying contracts became worthless as credit delinquency rates increased. Losses forced margin calls, fire sales ensued and large century-old investment banks went bankrupt or were bought by competitors... We have a lot of models today that describe this type of dynamic and all of them have one thing in common: the deleveraging process in the private sector is slow, very slow. Brunnermeier and Sannikov have models like this with bank-run like dynamics. Most of the time, you get recessions and expansions, but every now and then calm settles in and the financial sector increases its leverage in a way that makes a very large crash likelier. When things fall apart, so much value has been lost that the financial sector is undercapitalized and can't raise the funds it needs to function properly. Those rarer events last longer than others.

There's in fact a lot of empirical evidence that this picture is a good one. I know Rogoff has worked on this at the international level and he did find that financial crises tend to precede deeper recessions and recoveries are slow. A much more recent piece of work comes from
Adrian, Boyarchenko, and Giannone. In the US economy, they find evidence of what we call "multimodality" in the conditional distribution of output growth. The idea is that the economy spends most of its time showing the same kinds of growth, but every now and then when financial conditions become tight, it is also likely to spend a lot of time showing depressed growth rates. If you drew the distribution, you'd find "two mountains" instead of just one around the average: one around the average and a much small one closer to the left tail (very low, even negative, growth rates).

I don't think you would have made a big dent into it by gutting regulations. Tax cuts would have likely had a similar effect to spending, as long as it drove the deficit up. The ideal would have not been a series of bailouts, but public infrastructure. That unambiguously would have hastened the recovery, though some work on deficit spending suggests that the timing of additional spending is important and I suspect the reaction of the US government is bound to be pretty delayed. To give you an idea, data on GDP is released every quarter with a month of delay, the estimates are adjusted each quarter thereafter until up to 4 or 5 quarters later. The final value you see on the Federal Reserve's website versus the first estimate you would get when it comes out can show a difference as large as a whole standard deviation and it's worst around crises. It wasn't clear until months into the mess how big it would turn out to be and you need a solid case to get officials to move fast.


As for the bribing comment, some of it might have been unavoidable short of nationalizing some businesses. That's the "too big to fail" problem: large institutions concentrate risks and coordinate reactions in a way that can make them pose systemic risks. As nothing changed, I'd bet they will be bailed out again comes the next mess. The same kinds of executives will pay themselves record income with taxpayer money while laying off ordinary Joes, in spite of the fact their idiocy cost millions of innocent people billions in asset value. I don't think a single president would have been in a position to do anything about that, again short of just taking over the failing business. Things are still what they were in the 2000s: profits are private and large losses are insured by taxpayers -- except they don't pay a dime for that insurance.

Click to expand...

(edited for length)

Your post seems to be very good based on my limited understanding of the issues involved. When any asset is determined to be either worthless or severely overvalued, it's bad for the asset holder.

Following that realization and the resulting crash, the imposed regulations were strangling and terrifying to those who might want to invest or venture capital.

Obama was successful in making the most risk embracing population in the history of mankind put their money under the mattress.

Following the election of Trump, the pages in the Federal Register dropped from 97,110 at the end of 2016 to 68,082 at the end of 2017. At the end of 2009, the page count was 69,676.

https://www.llsdc.org/assets/sourcebook/fed-reg-pages.pdf

code1211 said:

There is more than one economic indicator.

Some are performance based and others are predictive.

It's a little like the weather. A nice day can be affected by temperature, wind speed, precipitation, what happened yesterday and what might happen tomorrow.

You are now free to ask why I started talking about the weather.

Click to expand...

You are here to cheerlead on the basis of partisanship. Hence, there can be no dialog when one posts with such a narrow agenda. You may have the last word... This ****-show of a thread is your creation.

Kushinator said:

You are here to cheerlead on the basis of partisanship. Hence, there can be no dialog when one posts with such a narrow agenda. You may have the last word... This ****-show of a thread is your creation.

Click to expand...

Whatever.

You are saying that the economy is bad. I have no idea why you say this.

code1211 said:

(edited for length)

Your post seems to be very good based on my limited understanding of the issues involved. When any asset is determined to be either worthless or severely overvalued, it's bad for the asset holder.

Following that realization and the resulting crash, the imposed regulations were strangling and terrifying to those who might want to invest or venture capital.

Obama was successful in making the most risk embracing population in the history of mankind put their money under the mattress.

Following the election of Trump, the pages in the Federal Register dropped from 97,110 at the end of 2016 to 68,082 at the end of 2017. At the end of 2009, the page count was 69,676.

Click to expand...

I am aware that the current administration has been actively seeking to limit the scope of existing regulations. They have been largely successful in moving forward with this agenda. Having paid attention to some of what Donald Trump has actually done over last summer, I suspect a large part of this success can be attributed to his showmanship, for lack of a better word. People seem to pay more attention to the frosting than the cake, so he distracts them with asinine comments and gets things done while people on the left throw a fit. With that being said, I do not have enough knowledge about the specifics of what the Trump administration did to judge the quality of their choices. Not all regulations are born equal. Moreover, the behavior I pointed out on the part of investment banks and rating agencies were, to my best knowledge, legal. Yet, they're part of the reason why the fall in housing prices did more than just leaving isolated households with personal financial problems.

It's unclear to me whether or not some regulations could help limit the chances something like that occurs again. Here, details matter a lot and I didn't dig into the legal details of what the Obama administration did or did not do in with regards to the regulation of financial markets and financial institutions. I'm not convinced either all the gutting is going to be made as thoughtfully as it should be, though part of the blame here befalls the left: they should be forcing debates and compromise, but they left the table the second Trump won in 2016.

TheEconomist said:

I am aware that the current administration has been actively seeking to limit the scope of existing regulations. They have been largely successful in moving forward with this agenda. Having paid attention to some of what Donald Trump has actually done over last summer, I suspect a large part of this success can be attributed to his showmanship, for lack of a better word. People seem to pay more attention to the frosting than the cake, so he distracts them with asinine comments and gets things done while people on the left throw a fit. With that being said, I do not have enough knowledge about the specifics of what the Trump administration did to judge the quality of their choices. Not all regulations are born equal. Moreover, the behavior I pointed out on the part of investment banks and rating agencies were, to my best knowledge, legal. Yet, they're part of the reason why the fall in housing prices did more than just leaving isolated households with personal financial problems.

It's unclear to me whether or not some regulations could help limit the chances something like that occurs again. Here, details matter a lot and I didn't dig into the legal details of what the Obama administration did or did not do in with regards to the regulation of financial markets and financial institutions. I'm not convinced either all the gutting is going to be made as thoughtfully as it should be, though part of the blame here befalls the left: they should be forcing debates and compromise, but they left the table the second Trump won in 2016.

Click to expand...

Again, my understanding of the financial crisis is limited to what I've heard from people that I trust who seem to know what they're talking about.

The mortgages for homes were all originated individually, but then were "bundled" into huge packages. The packaged bundles were then sold from one financial institution to another.

The individual mortgages, whether originals or seconds or thirds, were not evaluated individually in the subsequent sales of the bundles and the total of the listed values was assumed to be the legitimate value of the bundle.

However, the individual mortgages were too often abandoned by the borrowers thus reducing the actual value of those individual mortgages to nil and hollowing out the value of the bundle.

To a lending institution, a loan is an asset. Each asset is supposed to both represent a particular value and to generate a reliable future income stream.

When the bundles were determined to be comprised of worthless assets, the financial institutions were left holding the bag- the EMPTY bag(s). This was the result of not doing the homework to verify the values.

I have posted here before that anyone who took or issued a loan of any type or participated in the economy between 1936 and 2007 was at least partially responsible for the financial bubble bursting in 2007-8.

A satirist of the past observed wryly: "We have met the enemy and he is us". More often than not, this is true.

code1211 said:

Again, my understanding of the financial crisis is limited to what I've heard from people that I trust who seem to know what they're talking about. The mortgages for homes were all originated individually, but then were "bundled" into huge packages. The packaged bundles were then sold from one financial institution to another. The individual mortgages, whether originals or seconds or thirds, were not evaluated individually in the subsequent sales of the bundles and the total of the listed values was assumed to be the legitimate value of the bundle. However, the individual mortgages were too often abandoned by the borrowers thus reducing the actual value of those individual mortgages to nil and hollowing out the value of the bundle. To a lending institution, a loan is an asset. Each asset is supposed to both represent a particular value and to generate a reliable future income stream. When the bundles were determined to be comprised of worthless assets, the financial institutions were left holding the bag- the EMPTY bag(s). This was the result of not doing the homework to verify the values.

Click to expand...

It's a fair summary.