"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 21:09:28 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Bailed out" is just a phrase. Until it's given some content, one can't
talk
about the subject intelligently. Based on the very sketchy information
I've
seen so far, it looks to me like equity holders are being offered far
too
good a deal. Initially it looks like they come away with 20% of the
equity
of the reorganized enterprises if profitability is restored.


Yes, the economy is in bang up shape! Vote for Palin! She'll kill a few
moose.

I've now seen a bit more about the proposed plan. Too little too late. And
for too generous to the companies' stockholders. Anyone who has been
following the story for a few years would recognize that these companies
have been heading for a crackup for some time, and Congress has been
turning
a blind eye, blinded by lobbyists and campaign contributors.

The following from one of today's news stories:

"Republicans have long pushed for a structured overhaul of Fannie and
Freddie. By contrast, Democrats have warned against making major changes
until the companies were stabilized. The companies have traditionally had
stronger backing from Democrats who ... for years have fended off calls
for
greater oversight....

Sen. Obama has received $105,849 from donors tied to the companies since
he
ran for the Senate four years ago, making him the third-largest recipient
in
Congress and among the top 25 listed in a recent report by the Center for
Responsive Politics, which examined contributions dating to 1989.

Sen. McCain has not listed in the report, and proponents of overhaul say
lobbyists have tried unsuccessfully to win him over."

And meanwhile you have Shumer and Frank continue to push for the companies
to buy more mortgages, putting them deeper in the hole. Lobbyists
apparently
had no trouble winning them over. Fortunately, the plan does require both
companies to stop their lobbying activities.


Hate to tell you, but as a result of the take-over, both companies will be
buying even more mortgages. This debacle is a direct result of the removal
of regulations in the last seven years.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:58:38 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Hate to tell you, but as a result of the take-over, both companies will be
buying even more mortgages. This debacle is a direct result of the removal
of regulations in the last seven years.

Oh? Please tell me what regulations on these two companies have been
removed
in the last seven years to contribute to this result. Oh, and while you're
at it, tell me about what regulations governing banks' mortgages have been
removed leading to this result. Inquiring minds want to know.


You're a good researcher. I'm sure you can do your own investigation of the
facts if you're so inclined, which I doubt.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 08:44:46 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Oh? Please tell me what regulations on these two companies have been
removed
in the last seven years to contribute to this result. Oh, and while
you're
at it, tell me about what regulations governing banks' mortgages have
been
removed leading to this result. Inquiring minds want to know.


You're a good researcher. I'm sure you can do your own investigation of
the
facts if you're so inclined, which I doubt.

That's one I don't have to research, Jon. A big part of my practice over
the
last several years has been dealing with the OCC, OTS, FRB FDIC and State
banking regulators. I published a 50 page article in the field last year.

So I know you're full of **** on this one without having to touch the
books.

Now perhaps you can tell me what changes in the regulations your
"investigation of the facts" has revealed to you?


I'm glad you think I'm "full of ****." There's been little oversight in the
banking/mortgage industry, and the Bush admin. is at fault.

Why don't you tell us again how great the economy is doing.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:35:34 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

That's one I don't have to research, Jon. A big part of my practice over
the
last several years has been dealing with the OCC, OTS, FRB FDIC and
State
banking regulators. I published a 50 page article in the field last
year.

So I know you're full of **** on this one without having to touch the
books.

Now perhaps you can tell me what changes in the regulations your
"investigation of the facts" has revealed to you?


I'm glad you think I'm "full of ****." There's been little oversight in
the
banking/mortgage industry, and the Bush admin. is at fault.

The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current
administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the
legislators, and particular Dem legislators, have been in Fan and Fred's
pocket for years. As I said before, follow the money--not your left wing
nut
blogs.


So, you think things have gotten better or worse in the last 7 years?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:27:41 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current
administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the
legislators, and particular Dem legislators, have been in Fan and Fred's
pocket for years. As I said before, follow the money--not your left wing
nut
blogs.


So, you think things have gotten better or worse in the last 7 years?

In this area, what we've seen over the last 7 years is a continuation of
trends long in the offing. When it comes to assessing blame, we have a
huge
cast of characters, beginning with individuals who thought real estate
purchases involved all reward and no risk. The cast includes:

Home buyers who believed it was ok to lie about their ability to pay
mortgages because their homes could only keep going up.

Real estate brokers who persuaded them of the above.

Appraisers whose income depended on referrals from brokers, and were
willing
to do whatever it took to come in with appraisals that would yield a
commission to the referring broker. (I was looking at one of those deals
just last week.)

Mortgage brokers who made enormous amounts but were paid only when
mortgages
were closed, and were more than happy to encourage the borrowers to lie,
telling the customer that "everybody does it.".

Banks willing to buy the mortgages without looking too closely at the
documentation because they could resell them immediately to a greater
fool.

Mortgage buyers who bought from the banks without looking very closely
because they could sell the mortgages in a securitized bundle.

Investment bankers who deluded themselves and investors into thinking that
financial engineering could remove the risk of defaults.

Rating agencies who got paid to give ratings after telling the investment
bankers what to put into the package.

"Structured finance" lawyers who should have known better, but didn't ask
the right questions.

Auditors who never bothered to check transaction documents in auditing
financial statements (a few months ago I got a relatively prominent
auditing
firm fired by a client for that very reason).

Regulators who hadn't a clue about accounting issues.

One thing that might help the situation is a few very prominent
prosecutions
for mortgage fraud by home buyers. But I don't see that happening.

The underlying problem is the same as the one that caused the pension
problems of the 70s, the S&L crisis of the early 90s, the dot com bubble
of
2000, current issues with skyrocketing medical costs, and the social
security problem--a misalignment of risks and incentives: the belief that
you can get something for nothing and somebody else is gonna pay for it.
And
that has been the Dem mantra since forever.


All very interesting, but you didn't answer my question:

"So, you think things have gotten better or worse in the last 7 years?"

If you think things have gotten better, then Bush and the Republican
Congress can take the credit. If things have gotten worse, then you can
blame the Democrats. Seems fair to me. LOL


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:31:12 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

All very interesting, but you didn't answer my question:

That's because I didn't want to let you play your little game of trying to
change the subject as soon as it's shown you know nothing about the
subject
under discussion.


Dave, that was the original question. I asked you if the economy was better
or worse. You haven't answer to date.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:14:21 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Dave, that was the original question.

Perhaps you wish it were so. You've been wandering all over the place.
When
I pointed out that you've been claiming the economy has been continuously
in
the crapper for the last 8 years, you tried to drag in the seizure of Fan
and Fred. Since I know at least a bit about mortgages and banking I picked
up on that nonsense. I take it that kitchen is a bit too warm for you.


Actually, you started saying it:

Not entering. Remember, Ganz is the one who's been claiming the economy
has
been constantly in the crapper for the last 8 years.

I responded as follows:

Yeah, the job numbers and inflation index that just came out prove me
wrong!
LOL

Worst employment numbers in five years. Inflation on the rise. The mortgage
crisis getting worse, with no end in sight.

Drill, drill, drill... that'll fix it.

So, I ask again.... is the economy better or worse?

This is not a difficult question.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 8 Sep 2008 14:48:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:27:41 -0700, "Capt. JG" said:

The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current
administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the
legislators, and particular Dem legislators, have been in Fan and Fred's
pocket for years. As I said before, follow the money--not your left wing
nut
blogs.


So, you think things have gotten better or worse in the last 7 years?

In this area, what we've seen over the last 7 years is a continuation of
trends long in the offing. When it comes to assessing blame, we have a huge
cast of characters, beginning with individuals who thought real estate
purchases involved all reward and no risk. The cast includes:

Very good job of listing the entire chain of shame.

Home buyers who believed it was ok to lie about their ability to pay
mortgages because their homes could only keep going up.

Two subdivisions here. Those who were buying homes to live in that
they could not afford with trick mortgages and no down payments.
Strongly encouraged by liberal politicians. No skin in the game.

Those who were simply speculating, in many cases signing
pre-construction deals with neither the means nor the desire to close
the deal, simply intending to resell before they had any skin in the
game.

Real estate brokers who persuaded them of the above.

Appraisers whose income depended on referrals from brokers, and were willing
to do whatever it took to come in with appraisals that would yield a
commission to the referring broker. (I was looking at one of those deals
just last week.)

Mortgage brokers who made enormous amounts but were paid only when mortgages
were closed, and were more than happy to encourage the borrowers to lie,
telling the customer that "everybody does it.".

Once again, no skin in the game.

Banks willing to buy the mortgages without looking too closely at the
documentation because they could resell them immediately to a greater fool.

Hey, no skin in the game.
Mortgage buyers who bought from the banks without looking very closely
because they could sell the mortgages in a securitized bundle.

No skin in the game.

Investment bankers who deluded themselves and investors into thinking that
financial engineering could remove the risk of defaults.



Rating agencies who got paid to give ratings after telling the investment
bankers what to put into the package.



"Structured finance" lawyers who should have known better, but didn't ask
the right questions.

Auditors who never bothered to check transaction documents in auditing
financial statements (a few months ago I got a relatively prominent auditing
firm fired by a client for that very reason).

Regulators who hadn't a clue about accounting issues.

One thing that might help the situation is a few very prominent prosecutions
for mortgage fraud by home buyers. But I don't see that happening.

The underlying problem is the same as the one that caused the pension
problems of the 70s, the S&L crisis of the early 90s, the dot com bubble of
2000, current issues with skyrocketing medical costs, and the social
security problem--a misalignment of risks and incentives: the belief that
you can get something for nothing and somebody else is gonna pay for it. And
that has been the Dem mantra since forever.

No skin in the game.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On 8 Sep 2008 14:48:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:27:41 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current
administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the
legislators, and particular Dem legislators, have been in Fan and
Fred's
pocket for years. As I said before, follow the money--not your left
wing
nut
blogs.


So, you think things have gotten better or worse in the last 7 years?

In this area, what we've seen over the last 7 years is a continuation of
trends long in the offing. When it comes to assessing blame, we have a
huge
cast of characters, beginning with individuals who thought real estate
purchases involved all reward and no risk. The cast includes:

Very good job of listing the entire chain of shame.

Home buyers who believed it was ok to lie about their ability to pay
mortgages because their homes could only keep going up.

Two subdivisions here. Those who were buying homes to live in that
they could not afford with trick mortgages and no down payments.
Strongly encouraged by liberal politicians. No skin in the game.

Those who were simply speculating, in many cases signing
pre-construction deals with neither the means nor the desire to close
the deal, simply intending to resell before they had any skin in the
game.

Real estate brokers who persuaded them of the above.

Appraisers whose income depended on referrals from brokers, and were
willing
to do whatever it took to come in with appraisals that would yield a
commission to the referring broker. (I was looking at one of those deals
just last week.)

Mortgage brokers who made enormous amounts but were paid only when
mortgages
were closed, and were more than happy to encourage the borrowers to lie,
telling the customer that "everybody does it.".

Once again, no skin in the game.

Banks willing to buy the mortgages without looking too closely at the
documentation because they could resell them immediately to a greater
fool.

Hey, no skin in the game.
Mortgage buyers who bought from the banks without looking very closely
because they could sell the mortgages in a securitized bundle.

No skin in the game.

Investment bankers who deluded themselves and investors into thinking that
financial engineering could remove the risk of defaults.



Rating agencies who got paid to give ratings after telling the investment
bankers what to put into the package.



"Structured finance" lawyers who should have known better, but didn't ask
the right questions.

Auditors who never bothered to check transaction documents in auditing
financial statements (a few months ago I got a relatively prominent
auditing
firm fired by a client for that very reason).

Regulators who hadn't a clue about accounting issues.

One thing that might help the situation is a few very prominent
prosecutions
for mortgage fraud by home buyers. But I don't see that happening.

The underlying problem is the same as the one that caused the pension
problems of the 70s, the S&L crisis of the early 90s, the dot com bubble
of
2000, current issues with skyrocketing medical costs, and the social
security problem--a misalignment of risks and incentives: the belief that
you can get something for nothing and somebody else is gonna pay for it.
And
that has been the Dem mantra since forever.

No skin in the game.



You may not have skin in the game, but millions do. Some, for sure, deserve
what they get, being speculators. A huge number were bamboozled by predatory
lending practices.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On 8 Sep 2008 14:48:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:27:41 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

The current problems with Fan and Fred long antedate the current
administration, and can be traced in substantial part to the fact the
legislators, and particular Dem legislators, have been in Fan and
Fred's
pocket for years. As I said before, follow the money--not your left
wing
nut
blogs.


So, you think things have gotten better or worse in the last 7 years?

In this area, what we've seen over the last 7 years is a continuation of
trends long in the offing. When it comes to assessing blame, we have a
huge
cast of characters, beginning with individuals who thought real estate
purchases involved all reward and no risk. The cast includes:

Very good job of listing the entire chain of shame.

Home buyers who believed it was ok to lie about their ability to pay
mortgages because their homes could only keep going up.

Two subdivisions here. Those who were buying homes to live in that
they could not afford with trick mortgages and no down payments.
Strongly encouraged by liberal politicians. No skin in the game.

Those who were simply speculating, in many cases signing
pre-construction deals with neither the means nor the desire to close
the deal, simply intending to resell before they had any skin in the
game.

Real estate brokers who persuaded them of the above.

Appraisers whose income depended on referrals from brokers, and were
willing
to do whatever it took to come in with appraisals that would yield a
commission to the referring broker. (I was looking at one of those deals
just last week.)

Mortgage brokers who made enormous amounts but were paid only when
mortgages
were closed, and were more than happy to encourage the borrowers to lie,
telling the customer that "everybody does it.".

Once again, no skin in the game.

Banks willing to buy the mortgages without looking too closely at the
documentation because they could resell them immediately to a greater
fool.

Hey, no skin in the game.
Mortgage buyers who bought from the banks without looking very closely
because they could sell the mortgages in a securitized bundle.

No skin in the game.

Investment bankers who deluded themselves and investors into thinking
that
financial engineering could remove the risk of defaults.



Rating agencies who got paid to give ratings after telling the investment
bankers what to put into the package.



"Structured finance" lawyers who should have known better, but didn't ask
the right questions.

Auditors who never bothered to check transaction documents in auditing
financial statements (a few months ago I got a relatively prominent
auditing
firm fired by a client for that very reason).

Regulators who hadn't a clue about accounting issues.

One thing that might help the situation is a few very prominent
prosecutions
for mortgage fraud by home buyers. But I don't see that happening.

The underlying problem is the same as the one that caused the pension
problems of the 70s, the S&L crisis of the early 90s, the dot com bubble
of
2000, current issues with skyrocketing medical costs, and the social
security problem--a misalignment of risks and incentives: the belief that
you can get something for nothing and somebody else is gonna pay for it.
And
that has been the Dem mantra since forever.

No skin in the game.



You may not have skin in the game, but millions do. Some, for sure,
deserve what they get, being speculators. A huge number were bamboozled by
predatory lending practices.


OH PLEASE! Spare us the liberal victim mentality all the time, why don't
you!

Wilbur Hubbard