ADVERTISEMENT

Trump “lied his ass off" - United Steelworkers President Chuck Jones

I agree. Some say "no one saw it coming"...I think there were currents at work during this tragedy.

I was a bank examiner from 2000 - 2005. We all saw the loans that were being originated probably as early as 2003 (and not all banks were doing this. Mortgage brokers were more likely to originate these types of loans generally). What we didn't understand from a field level view is what this meant at a macro level. As long as property values were rising, nobody could lose.
 
I was a bank examiner from 2000 - 2005. We all saw the loans that were being originated probably as early as 2003 (and not all banks were doing this. Mortgage brokers were more likely to originate these types of loans generally). What we didn't understand from a field level view is what this meant at a macro level. As long as property values were rising, nobody could lose.
Community bankers were floored by the practice. On the local level, investment and capital must have a legitimate, solid value.
 
I think the housing bubble that popped was brought on by greedy uneducated blue collar worker's who didn't use the simple formula one weeks pay at 32 hrs is what your mortgage should be ...grandpa was a wise man ...uneducated but Wise..everyone trying to impress the Jones when the Jones are in debt ...a man in debt is not free...

If you can get free money to buy a house that was appreciating 20-50% annually, why would you, even as a blue collar worker, not take that risk? I built a $325,000 house in June 2004. It was the most I could afford. I completely maxed out my affordability ratios. In December 2005 I sold it and made $150,000. Which I promptly lost most all of it on the house I bought in 2006!!!!
 
If you can get free money to buy a house that was appreciating 20-50% annually, why would you, even as a blue collar worker, not take that risk? I built a $325,000 house in June 2004. It was the most I could afford. I completely maxed out my affordability ratios. In December 2005 I sold it and made $150,000. Which I promptly lost most all of it on the house ..it wasn't free money , nothing is free ! I made 80,000 & put it down on a little nicer place & a few more acres...& I bought it from a guy who maxed out his financial ability taking a gamble on the market ..he lost , I won ...later I lost it all in a divorce..now that was a stupid gamble, but I don't blame the preacher for it , or her parents. We are free to choose what we do with our money it is nobody's fault if we make a bad choose & believe people who is blowing smoke up our ass ...nothing is free & if it's easy better step back & study it
 
People that can't afford a loan, shouldn't be approved. A good bank knows who they are loaning money to very well.
As you said you need to look into Fanny and Freddie. People who would not otherwise qualify for loans are who these programs existed. A bank refusing these risky consumers when the federal government is basically (but not literally) saying they'll be the cosigners could leave a bank open discrimination liability.
 
Last edited:
As you said you need to look into Fanny and Freddie. People who would not otherwise qualify for loans are who these programs existed. A bank refusing there risky consumers when the federal government is basically (but not literally) saying they'll be the cosigners could leave a bank open discrimination liability.
The government didn't force banks to run with the practice though. Smaller banks were more reserved, because they rely on more solid foundations of investment (actual assets).
 
The government didn't force banks to run with the practice though. Smaller banks were more reserved, because they rely on more solid foundations of investment (actual assets).
This is an impossible discussion on a message board. I think the movie The Big Short is where most people seem to be drawing their opinions. There were many factors involved in the housing crash. Private sector subprime lending was a huge factor. Failed regulation was a huge factor. Yes, smaller banks were more reserved, but these GSEs weren't designed for a small bank model. The risk in theory is offset by volume. Smaller banks cannot handle the volume to mitigate the risk.
 
This is an impossible discussion on a message board. I think the movie The Big Short is where most people seem to be drawing their opinions. There were many factors involved in the housing crash. Private sector subprime lending was a huge factor. Failed regulation was a huge factor. Yes, smaller banks were more reserved, but these GSEs weren't designed for a small bank model. The risk in theory is offset by volume. Smaller banks cannot handle the volume to mitigate the risk.
You and WVpatx (or whatever his handle is) make good points, and have a very good understanding of where the problems arose. I'm not arguing that at all. My point about small banks is about how we view debt and investment as a whole in this nation. Too much of our nations vital industries are ran like a poker hand where the player doesn't assess what could be lost as a part of the investment, we tend to only see what we can win. Yes I know this is more of my abstract mind numbing rhetoric, but hear me out. The housing market....yes government programs surely contributed.....but there is still those that jumped into the market with both feet because the water was warm. People purchased homes and lots to build homes in Florida for example without doing due diligence on the market (which was clearly over saturated - or at least heading in that direction). A cost of investment needs to be assessed in a very real, hard thorough manner. I see it kind of like a "gold rush" mentality. No matter what the market....there is always a limit to the value. As more people buy plots the value reaches a tipping point where it starts to decline. Hard to see? Yes, but bankers could see it in the bundling and re-bundling of debt, and people living in Florida could see it in the overwealming amount of houses being built. I'm saying as our scope narrows, our vision can see a little clearer.
 
This is an impossible discussion on a message board. I think the movie The Big Short is where most people seem to be drawing their opinions. There were many factors involved in the housing crash. Private sector subprime lending was a huge factor. Failed regulation was a huge factor. Yes, smaller banks were more reserved, but these GSEs weren't designed for a small bank model. The risk in theory is offset by volume. Smaller banks cannot handle the volume to mitigate the risk.
It wasn't just the housing market that caused the crash as well.
 
Take a broader view on this....why were institutional investors willing to buy mortgage backed securities (MBS) secured by mortgages issued to borrowers that couldn't afford them????

Investors, either ignorant or chasing quick and massive returns, fed this monster. By 2004, we all knew what was going on yet there was this insatiable demand for more MBS. If investors don't buy this junk, nobody originates it.

The rating agencies gave them AAA ratings. They failed in their role to inform investors. Greed was out in control. But don't absolve of government including the regulators. There was not a regulator out there that warned anyone that this was happening. And the politicians, we're encouraging investments and Freddie and Fannie up to the last moment. Lastly, don't forget the Fed and they're easy money policy. Creating a huge asset bubble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boomboom521
You and WVpatx (or whatever his handle is) make good points, and have a very good understanding of where the problems arose. I'm not arguing that at all. My point about small banks is about how we view debt and investment as a whole in this nation. Too much of our nations vital industries are ran like a poker hand where the player doesn't assess what could be lost as a part of the investment, we tend to only see what we can win. Yes I know this is more of my abstract mind numbing rhetoric, but hear me out. The housing market....yes government programs surely contributed.....but there is still those that jumped into the market with both feet because the water was warm. People purchased homes and lots to build homes in Florida for example without doing due diligence on the market (which was clearly over saturated - or at least heading in that direction). A cost of investment needs to be assessed in a very real, hard thorough manner. I see it kind of like a "gold rush" mentality. No matter what the market....there is always a limit to the value. As more people buy plots the value reaches a tipping point where it starts to decline. Hard to see? Yes, but bankers could see it in the bundling and re-bundling of debt, and people living in Florida could see it in the overwealming amount of houses being built. I'm saying as our scope narrows, our vision can see a little clearer.

I know many developers that lost everything during the collapse. Everyone believed housing prices were going to continue to rise. And when they begin to fall, the house of cards crumbled. There was no question creed was a big motivator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boomboom521
I was a bank examiner from 2000 - 2005. We all saw the loans that were being originated probably as early as 2003 (and not all banks were doing this. Mortgage brokers were more likely to originate these types of loans generally). What we didn't understand from a field level view is what this meant at a macro level. As long as property values were rising, nobody could lose.

I believe that is exactly what happened. No one fully understood the impact if real estate values began to decline. Each originator was doing their own thing with greed is a big motivator. The banks bundle these bad loans with good loans and the rating agencies gave them AAA ratings. Derivatives were written against these bundles and AIG and others insured them into the trillions of dollars. Politicians didn't see it coming, the banks didn't see it coming, and the regulators didn't see it coming.
 
I believe that is exactly what happened. No one fully understood the impact if real estate values began to decline. Each originator was doing their own thing with greed is a big motivator. The banks bundle these bad loans with good loans and the rating agencies gave them AAA ratings. Derivatives were written against these bundles and AIG and others insured them into the trillions of dollars. Politicians didn't see it coming, the banks didn't see it coming, and the regulators didn't see it coming.

I have said since 2009 that complicit rating agency employees should have gone to jail. Investors relied on their fraudulent, artificially inflated ratings.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT