On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:49:11 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


That was the intent, but what it produced was Equal Opportunity Lending,
regardless of the ability to repay, race, religion or gender and it
encompasses everybody.

Nowhere in the CRA were banks ordered to disregard good business
practices. They did that on their own.

You say sub-prime loans didn't do the economy in, but acknowledge it was
the stupid actions of banks and investment houses in their dealings with
sub-prime loans. So, sub-prime loans really are at the heart of the
problem. What if the lending banks had not had the option to sell them
off to the investment houses? The answer, pure and simple, is that the
loans would never have been made to begin with.

Let's see, in normal business practices, if I make a loan, I accept the
risk. In this case, I make the loan, take my money, and pass the risk
off to someone else. What's to keep me honest? "Liar loans"? Come on,
these lenders abrogated their responsibilities. Buffet was right, these
derivatives were "weapons of mutual destruction".

And then to make matters worse, these nitwits leveraged themselves in
derivatives to astronomical proportions. It's my understanding that
money is tight now, because no one knows who owns the bad debts. F'n
geniuses don't even know what they own? No way you can convince me that
some poor slob in Cleveland, trying to buy his dream house, is the cause
of this problem.

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

On Jan 9, 10:28*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:49:11 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
That was the intent, but what it produced was Equal Opportunity Lending,
regardless of the ability to repay, *race, religion or gender and it
encompasses everybody.

Nowhere in the CRA were banks ordered to disregard good business
practices. *They did that on their own. *

You say sub-prime loans didn't do the economy in, but acknowledge it was
the stupid actions of banks and investment houses in their dealings with
sub-prime loans. *So, sub-prime loans really are at the heart of the
problem. *What if the lending banks had not had the option to sell them
off to the investment houses? * The answer, pure and simple, is that the
loans would never have been made to begin with.

Let's see, in normal business practices, if I make a loan, I accept the
risk. *In this case, I make the loan, take my money, and pass the risk
off to someone else. *What's to keep me honest? *"Liar loans"? *Come on,
these lenders abrogated their responsibilities. *Buffet was right, these
derivatives were "weapons of mutual destruction".

And then to make matters worse, these nitwits leveraged themselves in
derivatives to astronomical proportions. *It's my understanding that
money is tight now, because no one knows who owns the bad debts. *F'n
geniuses don't even know what they own? *No way you can convince me that
some poor slob in Cleveland, trying to buy his dream house, is the cause
of this problem.

It was greed. *Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk. *
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. *A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill. *

I still remember the bull**** I took here a couple of years back when
I complained about Bank of America openly advertizing to illegals and
anyone else with a pulse that they were handing out free money. They
still have the ads in spanish, "bank of opportunity". They knew what
they were doing, they knew they would get bailed out as they were
paying Dodd, Frank, Obama, Kerry, et al barrels of money...

wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:49:11 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


That was the intent, but what it produced was Equal Opportunity Lending,
regardless of the ability to repay, race, religion or gender and it
encompasses everybody.

Nowhere in the CRA were banks ordered to disregard good business
practices. They did that on their own.

You say sub-prime loans didn't do the economy in, but acknowledge it was
the stupid actions of banks and investment houses in their dealings with
sub-prime loans. So, sub-prime loans really are at the heart of the
problem. What if the lending banks had not had the option to sell them
off to the investment houses? The answer, pure and simple, is that the
loans would never have been made to begin with.

Let's see, in normal business practices, if I make a loan, I accept the
risk. In this case, I make the loan, take my money, and pass the risk
off to someone else. What's to keep me honest? "Liar loans"? Come on,
these lenders abrogated their responsibilities. Buffet was right, these
derivatives were "weapons of mutual destruction".

And then to make matters worse, these nitwits leveraged themselves in
derivatives to astronomical proportions. It's my understanding that
money is tight now, because no one knows who owns the bad debts. F'n
geniuses don't even know what they own? No way you can convince me that
some poor slob in Cleveland, trying to buy his dream house, is the cause
of this problem.

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

Ah, but you left out *why* banks felt safe making the loans. In general,
banks are the
most conservative, no risk lenders in the world. In a normal economy you
basically have
to prove you don't need the money in order to qualify for it.

The problem was the government getting involved via Freddie and Fanny to
take the
risks away and that started in 1995.

Eisboch

wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:49:11 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


That was the intent, but what it produced was Equal Opportunity Lending,
regardless of the ability to repay, race, religion or gender and it
encompasses everybody.

Nowhere in the CRA were banks ordered to disregard good business
practices. They did that on their own.

You say sub-prime loans didn't do the economy in, but acknowledge it was
the stupid actions of banks and investment houses in their dealings with
sub-prime loans. So, sub-prime loans really are at the heart of the
problem. What if the lending banks had not had the option to sell them
off to the investment houses? The answer, pure and simple, is that the
loans would never have been made to begin with.

Let's see, in normal business practices, if I make a loan, I accept the
risk. In this case, I make the loan, take my money, and pass the risk
off to someone else. What's to keep me honest? "Liar loans"? Come on,
these lenders abrogated their responsibilities. Buffet was right, these
derivatives were "weapons of mutual destruction".

And then to make matters worse, these nitwits leveraged themselves in
derivatives to astronomical proportions. It's my understanding that
money is tight now, because no one knows who owns the bad debts. F'n
geniuses don't even know what they own? No way you can convince me that
some poor slob in Cleveland, trying to buy his dream house, is the cause
of this problem.

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

When you "invite" all the CEOs of the major US based banks in front of a
Congressional committee and tell them that you believe that the practice
of red-lining is not in their, the banks, best interest and that they
should re-evaluate their lending practices otherwise they may find
themselves facing the committee again testifying under oath. The threat
is understood by any moderately intelligent person.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:28:33 -0600, wrote:

It was greed. Financial markets are run on the balance of greed/risk.
There's nothing wrong with that, but greed took over, and here we are. A
few fat cat "financiers" just brought the world's economy to a
standstill.

Um...it takes two to tango you know. The old saw "if it's too good to
be true, it probably is" had a big part in this.

In my view, politics besides the point, folks who purchased $300,000
homes with no documenation of their $100,000 income when they were
actually on welfare are just as guilty as those who wrote the
mortgages.

And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.

Also, I would posit that the base reason the economy tanked wasn't the
mortgage crisis - it was the rampant speculation on the crude oil
market that tanked the world's economy.

And I think I can prove it.

--

If we aren't supposed to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.


Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later for
$1M.

I feel so guilty.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.


Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

Eisboch

You'll be getting a nasty phone call from Ohio soon.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:31:21 -0500, Jim wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...


And believe it or not, that's pretty much what happened. The dynamic
of buying a $300,000 home one year and selling it the next for
$400,000 was too good to be true. I saw it happen right here in
Woodstock right down the street from me.

There is a lot of blame to go around on this - it wasn't strictly a
case of financiers being greedy.


Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

Eisboch

You'll be getting a nasty phone call from Ohio soon.


Ewwwwwh!

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:18:17 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

I keep wondering how that dentist from the south make out. I hope he's
riding it out, even though he was a conservative SOB. ;-)

wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:18:17 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Gee. We bought a house in Florida for $485K. Sold it 3 years later
for $1M.

I feel so guilty.

I keep wondering how that dentist from the south make out. I hope he's
riding it out, even though he was a conservative SOB. ;-)


He was really upside down in that house. I sorta miss him. He was
exasperating, but a hell of a lot brighter than most of the
"conservatives" who remain here.