ya gotta love it

Bill Bowden wrote

All very uninformed.

No he didnt.

Not in the sense that they ever wanted loans written for those who couldnt make the payments.

Yes, but for completely different reasons.

The bundling and securitization of loans and them getting AAA rating that they didnt even come close to qualifying for saw the industry not give a damn about loan defaults. In fact is was actually MUCH worse than that, they got HIGHER commissions for loans to bad risks, because they had to pay a higher rate of interest once the sucker rate ran out. Its hardly surprising that they wrote a hell of a lot of bad loans in that situation.

THAT was the real problem which was compounded by the housing bubble that had to burst sometime.

And NO ONE who mattered policy wise like Bernanke even warned about the problem.

They didnt know it wouldnt work, they were actually stupid enough to believe that it would work.

Add to that trailing stops, say around 25% but DO NOT enter the info into the market as brokers have been known to manipulate the market to force the sell and gain from the rise. ALWAYS know when to sell - *more* important than the buy.

Barney Frank's emphasis has been on affordable *rental* housing. At least I haven't seen any data to show that he pushed mortgages. This is what he says, and I believe he can be taken at his word.

Eh?

It all sounds great, but wages weren't up to supporting all that debt. This was Bush following in the Reagan tradition of trying to meld "Progressive" and Conservative agenda items into a synthesis.

I don't think you can blame him, either.

I'd say that financial engineering made it look like "the house" could offer very low interest rates on very low down payments. This looked like something with a very high social benefit to firms like Countrywide. If JP Morgan was then "the house", yeah - they probably shrugged and went with it. And once it became identified as that path to success within those firms, none dare call it treason...

but the "original sin" error here was the (mis)application of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis - markets only clear when there are buyers.

I'm looseley translating what I've read from Micheal Lewis. People like Micheal Burry simply called a short and were right.

-- Les Cargill

RichD wrote in news:b91d35d2-627c-4684-a853- snipped-for-privacy@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

If you think that what the Times Article said was the equivalent of the Lake Wobegon quip, then you might want to re-read the article.

"Let it also be noted that going into 2007 Fannie and Freddie had never in history been allowed to purchase or finance sub-prime mortgages. But under pressure from Democrats in Congress (including Frank), they were granted this authority by regulators in September

-Bill

Ooh. Right you are. I missed that detail.

-- Les Cargill

I did, and I don't limn any other interpretation. If you read something else into it, please specify -

-- Rich

RichD wrote in news:c3dc3199-2d60-4e97-add0- snipped-for-privacy@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

The article doesn't compare the average with the average. It compares how managed funds (which charge you money in return for clever investing) to the market itself. The point is that if you just invest randomly, you're likely to do better than a managed fund which invests cleverly in order to make more money.

True. A number of YouTubes document it the soundbites of the time.

Ultimately Democrats whipped out the race card, and Republican reformers backed down. Kind of like now, when Democrats insist cutting tiny cuts down from a trillion in their annual increases will leave seniors starving in the streets.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

ne

le

he

Bush tried several times starting in 2002 to reform Freddie and Fannie. I think that's what Bill's referring to. Democrats blocked him, called him racist. Barney Frank, IIRC.

e.g.,

-- Cheers, James Arthur

It was in at least two of his SotU speeches.