TrumPutinGate

#8,776
#8,776
orangeluvr said:
Wrong! The community banks simply didn't have as much $$$ to loan as the larger banks. It's either a monopoly or free market competition. The consumer choose the lower rates and looser loan requirements of the big banks. That ain't no talking' point dude. :ermm:
Click to expand...
One big reason that small banks were short of funds is the enormous cost of hiring outside firms to meet Dodd-Frank compliance requirements. Several hundred thousand dollars a year is nothing to large banks, but a significant hit to a small community bank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,777
#8,777
Velo Vol said:
5 of 7 morning post-G20 tweets about Russia.

Definitely nothing going on here.
Click to expand...

tRumps's world view is really f'd , he sees our oldest allies as economic competitors and they are slowly losing confidence in the US as the leader of western democracies . :crazy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,779
#8,779
It's good we're finally moving forward and looking to form an "impenetrable" cyber security unit with Russia...trump and Putin had a solid conversation
 
#8,781
#8,781
Septic said:
Can someone give the PF a flow chart on when it's OK to cite CNN as a reliable source? Will this work?

Code: 
Is it pro trump?  ---> Yes ----> Legit, unbiased news
                        |
                        No ----> Fake News, liberal rag
Click to expand...

It's common knowledge Trump called them out, one of the few times your side reported a story factually..
 
#8,782
#8,782
orangeluvr said:
Wrong! The community banks simply didn't have as much $$$ to loan as the larger banks. It's either a monopoly or free market competition. The consumer choose the lower rates and looser loan requirements of the big banks. That ain't no talking' point dude. :ermm:
Click to expand...

Orange, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have been in this industry for 20+ years and your comments show your ignorance on this subject. Please stop with these dumb comments or do some research on what really happened to cause the sub-prime meltdown and the needless, disastrous effect of Dodd-Frank on all entities involved except for the large banks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#8,783
#8,783
Sin City Vol said:
It's good we're finally moving forward and looking to form an "impenetrable" cyber security unit with Russia...trump and Putin had a solid conversation
Click to expand...

Well, what better way to develop cyber security measures then working in conjunction with the very people who hacked us? :crazy:

...of course, Trump and his surrogates will not answer the question as to whether or not he accepted Putin's denial - while still blaming Obama for not taking action in the aftermath. :birgits_giggle:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,784
#8,784
825VOL said:
Orange, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have been in this industry for 20+ years and your comments show your ignorance on this subject. Please stop with these dumb comments or do some research on what really happened to cause the sub-prime meltdown and the needless, disastrous effect of Dodd-Frank on all entities involved except for the large banks.
Click to expand...

Careful...you will be emotionally attacked by emojis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,787
#8,787
AirVol said:
Careful...you will be emotionally attacked by emojis.
Click to expand...

I can handle the emojis. I read all of these threads everyday. I get a kick out of all the crazy comments and conspiracy theories. It makes me laugh. I just can't stand people posting as if they know something about a subject when they are clueless. Back to lurking.
 
#8,788
#8,788
825VOL said:
Orange, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have been in this industry for 20+ years and your comments show your ignorance on this subject. Please stop with these dumb comments or do some research on what really happened to cause the sub-prime meltdown and the needless, disastrous effect of Dodd-Frank on all entities involved except for the large banks.
Click to expand...

No dumber that the majority of the posts on Here, thought the Rs were all about the free market, looks like they're more into privatization and deregulation. The latter issn't always the answer. That's where I differ with the Rs.
You left out the reason the big boys were able to make those loans, under staffed oversight body thanks to good ole W,that looked the other way. Pro rated over the tax base the scandal cost each individual $8K-$10K . The deregulation of the savings and loan industry under bush1 led to a scandal that left the tax payer hiding the bag to the tune of $8.5k. Does anyone see a pattern here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,790
#8,790
orangeluvr said:
No dumber that the majority of the posts on Here, thought the Rs were all about the free market, looks like they're more into privatization and deregulation. The latter issn't always the answer. That's where I differ with the Rs.
You left out the reason the big boys were able to make those loans, under staffed oversight body thanks to good ole W,that looked the other way. Pro rated over the tax base the scandal cost each individual $8K-$10K . The deregulation of the savings and loan industry under bush1 led to a scandal that left the tax payer hiding the bag to the tune of $8.5k. Does anyone see a pattern here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're an idiot
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9290.jpg
    IMG_9290.jpg
    106.7 KB · Views: 1
  • IMG_9291.jpg
    IMG_9291.jpg
    110.9 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,791
#8,791
orangeluvr said:
No dumber that the majority of the posts on Here, thought the Rs were all about the free market, looks like they're more into privatization and deregulation. The latter issn't always the answer. That's where I differ with the Rs.
You left out the reason the big boys were able to make those loans, under staffed oversight body thanks to good ole W,that looked the other way. Pro rated over the tax base the scandal cost each individual $8K-$10K . The deregulation of the savings and loan industry under bush1 led to a scandal that left the tax payer hiding the bag to the tune of $8.5k. Does anyone see a pattern here.
Click to expand...

I see a pattern. You have no clue what you are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#8,792
#8,792
BowlBrother85 said:
Well, what better way to develop cyber security measures then working in conjunction with the very people who hacked us? :crazy:

...of course, Trump and his surrogates will not answer the question as to whether or not he accepted Putin's denial - while still blaming Obama for not taking action in the aftermath. :birgits_giggle:
Click to expand...

Be a safe bet to say the old KBG agent presiding over a weak economy and a 2ND rate military got the better of that meeting. Amateur hour. :crazy:
 
#8,795
#8,795
orangeluvr said:
No dumber that the majority of the posts on Here, thought the Rs were all about the free market, looks like they're more into privatization and deregulation. The latter issn't always the answer. That's where I differ with the Rs.
You left out the reason the big boys were able to make those loans, under staffed oversight body thanks to good ole W,that looked the other way. Pro rated over the tax base the scandal cost each individual $8K-$10K . The deregulation of the savings and loan industry under bush1 led to a scandal that left the tax payer hiding the bag to the tune of $8.5k. Does anyone see a pattern here.
Click to expand...

You should just stop on this subject as you obviously only know what has been reported on the "news". The housing market had never been a free market, at least not after Fannie Mae was created. Do you even understand how securitization works and that all bank, credit unions, etc. sale their loan to investors? If they didn't they would all run out of money to lend. They may keep the servicing on these loans(that's why you still make you payment to Chase or Wells) but they don't keep their loans.

Since you don't know what really happened, I will give you a brief synopsis. The major players were not originally involved in sub-prime lending. Those involved in sub-prime were backed by private investors who required a much larger return for their risks-i.e. a higher interest rate. The big banks and their subsidiaries saw how profitable this was and started what was called Alt-A. Alt-A was loans for self-employed people who did not show their income on their taxes and required a 20% down payment. These loans performed wonderfully as no one wanted to lose a 20% down payment. These Alt-A loans had to either e kept on the banks balance sheet or sold to investors. Again, these had higher rates than normal loans. Over a few years, the investors continued to lower either the down payment requirement or the credit score needed to get these loans in order to keep market share. At this point there still was not an issue with the majority of these loans.

Now is when the government(Fannie) entered the picture and the tax payer's started to be on the hook for these loans. Franklin Raines, who ran Fannie, saw their market share declining rapidly so they started buying these Alt-A/Sub-prime loans to increase their balance sheet. Why would they do this? Just look at the bonuses that Raines made at Fannie. The bonuses were based on the balance sheet at Fannie. He made 20-30 million in bonuses buying these loans. Once Fannie started buying these loans, the original investors had to continually drop their down payment and credit score requirements to maintain a market share. This is the cause of the all the sub-prime products such as the NINJA(no income no job or assets) loans. As well all know it got so out of control that it eventually collapsed.

W tried to stop Fannie from doing this but was block by Barney Frank. Frank assured everyone that Fannie was on firm footing at that nothing was wrong with their operations. This is the same idiot that helped to write Dodd-Frank. As you can see, if the government(Fannie) would have stayed out of this(their mandate did not allow them to do this but they did anyway) then the tax payers would have never been on the hook for loses and only the private investors would have lost money.

Government intervention doesn't always help the issue as you can see in this instance. Now, if you would like an education on how screwed up Dodd-Frank is, just let me know. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#8,796
#8,796
BowlBrother85 said:
Well, what better way to develop cyber security measures then working in conjunction with the very people who hacked us? :crazy:

...of course, Trump and his surrogates will not answer the question as to whether or not he accepted Putin's denial - while still blaming Obama for not taking action in the aftermath. :birgits_giggle:
Click to expand...

Hacked us? Who's this us you speak of?
 
#8,798
#8,798
825VOL said:
You should just stop on this subject as you obviously only know what has been reported on the "news". The housing market had never been a free market, at least not after Fannie Mae was created. Do you even understand how securitization works and that all bank, credit unions, etc. sale their loan to investors? If they didn't they would all run out of money to lend. They may keep the servicing on these loans(that's why you still make you payment to Chase or Wells) but they don't keep their loans.

Since you don't know what really happened, I will give you a brief synopsis. The major players were not originally involved in sub-prime lending. Those involved in sub-prime were backed by private investors who required a much larger return for their risks-i.e. a higher interest rate. The big banks and their subsidiaries saw how profitable this was and started what was called Alt-A. Alt-A was loans for self-employed people who did not show their income on their taxes and required a 20% down payment. These loans performed wonderfully as no one wanted to lose a 20% down payment. These Alt-A loans had to either e kept on the banks balance sheet or sold to investors. Again, these had higher rates than normal loans. Over a few years, the investors continued to lower either the down payment requirement or the credit score needed to get these loans in order to keep market share. At this point there still was not an issue with the majority of these loans.

Now is when the government(Fannie) entered the picture and the tax payer's started to be on the hook for these loans. Franklin Raines, who ran Fannie, saw their market share declining rapidly so they started buying these Alt-A/Sub-prime loans to increase their balance sheet. Why would they do this? Just look at the bonuses that Raines made at Fannie. The bonuses were based on the balance sheet at Fannie. He made 20-30 million in bonuses buying these loans. Once Fannie started buying these loans, the original investors had to continually drop their down payment and credit score requirements to maintain a market share. This is the cause of the all the sub-prime products such as the NINJA(no income no job or assets) loans. As well all know it got so out of control that it eventually collapsed.

W tried to stop Fannie from doing this but was block by Barney Frank. Frank assured everyone that Fannie was on firm footing at that nothing was wrong with their operations. This is the same idiot that helped to write Dodd-Frank. As you can see, if the government(Fannie) would have stayed out of this(their mandate did not allow them to do this but they did anyway) then the tax payers would have never been on the hook for loses and only the private investors would have lost money.

Government intervention doesn't always help the issue as you can see in this instance. Now, if you would like an education on how screwed up Dodd-Frank is, just let me know. :)
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on the political lens one views the world through. No matter how you attempt to whitewash it these scandals did severe harm to the average American.
 
#8,799
#8,799
orangeluvr said:
Wrong! The community banks simply didn't have as much $$$ to loan as the larger banks. It's either a monopoly or free market competition. The consumer choose the lower rates and looser loan requirements of the big banks. That ain't no talking' point dude. :ermm:
Click to expand...

The community banks have always had less money to lend before 2010 too. Why didn't the free market act upon them 20 years ago and shut them down?

...because there was nothing "free market" about what went down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,800
#8,800
orangeluvr said:
Guess it depends on the political lens one views the world through. No matter how you attempt to whitewash it these scandals did severe harm to the average American.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I laugh at people like you. There was not political bias in what I wrote, only facts about what happened. Yet, you insist that facts are whitewashing. Did I argue anywhere in what I wrote they the average American was not harmed?

Your response is just more BS from you to distract from the fact that you have no idea what you were talking about. If you were honest, you would have replied "I didn't know that and I need to do some research of my own".

Just for the record, I hate democrats and republicans equally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top