Bannon?

[Pio1980]

I'm not clear on who forced who to compose contracts that were clearly unfulfillable. I am reminded of the military recuiting quota problems we've encountered.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Pio1980]

With me, it's the "follow the money" thing to find motive.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Another way to look at that is that through the Clinton and Bush administrations there was government manipulation because they wanted everybody to own their own home. A noble idea really.
But, the traditional methods of financing mortgages would not carry that load . The requirements were too strict and traditional mortgage underwriters didn't want the risk.

So, this was driven by government, Community Reinvestment Act, that type thing.


Talking about losers, AIG stockholders lost 90% of their money.
It's a little shallow to blame all of this on the banks.

Really? Under the rules at that time the banks were gambling with depositor's money. If they won they kept the profits, if they lost FDIC picked up the tab. Gramm, etc broke down the wall between regular banking and investment banking put in place by Glass Steagal.

On top of all that the mortgage system here invites theft, the wonder is that it took so long before Wells Fargo, Countrywide and B of A to use it.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Really? Under the rules at that time the banks were gambling with depositor's money. If they won they kept the profits, if they lost FDIC picked up the tab. Gramm, etc broke down the wall between regular banking and investment banking put in place by Glass Steagal.

On top of all that the mortgage system here invites theft, the wonder is that it took so long before Wells Fargo, Countrywide and B of A to use it.

To make your notion of all this work the borrowers had to either borrow money that they knew they could not pay back, or not be intelligent enough to know what they were committing to.

I don't think the latter was the case at all. I started to buy a trailer park about that time, partly because it joins one of my properties. But hell, you could buy a house for the combined cost of water, rent, etc. So, it was only about half full and I thought why would anybody move here.

So, you buy a house for whatever your apartment rent is or less and live there some unknown period of time. Maybe eventually you had to move out. But, what did you lose besides the trouble.

I think these people knew exactly what they are doing.

There is such a thing as taking responsibility for your actions, although there is no such thing to the left.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

To make your notion of all this work the borrowers had to either borrow money that they knew they could not pay back, or not be intelligent enough to know what they were committing to.

I don't think the latter was the case at all. I started to buy a trailer park about that time, partly because it joins one of my properties. But hell, you could buy a house for the combined cost of water, rent, etc. So, it was only about half full and I thought why would anybody move here.

So, you buy a house for whatever your apartment rent is or less and live there some unknown period of time. Maybe eventually you had to move out. But, what did you lose besides the trouble.
I think these people knew exactly what they are doing.

There is such a thing as taking responsibility for your actions, although there is no such thing to the left.

Bull shit. One of our employees fell into this trap buying a house that was around 80 miles away from our company. He even talked a couple of other employees into doing this, including his younger brother who also worked for us. I had to loan him $17,000 just to be able to sell his house and get out of his loan obligation a few years later.

Guess why? Zero down, interest only loan, at the end of five years market rate interest, whatever that means. So this guy after five years could not make payments and house was worth a lot less than what he paid.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

To make your notion of all this work the borrowers had to either borrow money that they knew they could not pay back, or not be intelligent enough to know what they were committing to.

I don't think the latter was the case at all. I started to buy a trailer park about that time, partly because it joins one of my properties. But hell, you could buy a house for the combined cost of water, rent, etc. So, it was only about half full and I thought why would anybody move here.

So, you buy a house for whatever your apartment rent is or less and live there some unknown period of time. Maybe eventually you had to move out. But, what did you lose besides the trouble.

I think these people knew exactly what they are doing.

There is such a thing as taking responsibility for your actions, although there is no such thing to the left.

You really think the folks who wrote these contracts did so in terse plain language and explained them in detail so that they were clearly understood? And that the contracts would be resold, sometimes more than once, bundled into "traunches" and sold as "investments" to the unsuspecting marks for the sellers to make a killing off the insider loopholes?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Another way to look at that is that through the Clinton and Bush administrations there was government manipulation because they wanted everybody to own their own home. A noble idea really.
But, the traditional methods of financing mortgages would not carry that load . The requirements were too strict and traditional mortgage underwriters didn't want the risk.

So, this was driven by government, Community Reinvestment Act, that type thing.


Talking about losers, AIG stockholders lost 90% of their money.
It's a little shallow to blame all of this on the banks.

You can believe anything if you make up your facts.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Bull shit. One of our employees fell into this trap buying a house that was around 80 miles away from our company. He even talked a couple of other employees into doing this, including his younger brother who also worked for us. I had to loan him $17,000 just to be able to sell his house and get out of his loan obligation a few years later.

Guess why? Zero down, interest only loan, at the end of five years market rate interest, whatever that means. So this guy after five years could not make payments and house was worth a lot less than what he paid.

So, you are saying he was too stupid to understand what he was signing.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

You really think the folks who wrote these contracts did so in terse plain language and explained them in detail so that they were clearly understood? And that the contracts would be resold, sometimes more than once, bundled into "traunches" and sold as "investments" to the unsuspecting marks for the sellers to make a killing off the insider loopholes?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

What difference does that make. I still have a mortgage and it has been sold to somebody I never heard of. I just pay them.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You can believe anything if you make up your facts.

You and facts are a comical combination.

If the borrowers had simply paid what they committed to pay there would have never been a collapse.

And, that is a fact.