@carramrod Incidentally LBFM’s are not about porn. no cameraman in his right mind would film Trump with Chinese virgins because it would shatter the lens.
@larsiu it’s not the presidents job to encourage MBS. I doubt Clinton had an understanding of what effect repealing Glass-Steagal would have on the housing market but that really isn’t the issue.
In terms of ‘08, all of the Wall Street deregulation in the world is moot without cramming down low income mortgages at the ground level. Banks don’t lend to bad debtors, it’s not in their interest to do so, unless there is pressure to do so. And that’s the genesis of the entire crisis.
That's pretty epic level ignorance of the entire situation. What one would expect from a political hack, definitely not a finance pro.
Not a pro. I’m an operations and tech guy. But a finance acumen greater than yourself? Assuredly.
@larsiu it’s not the presidents job to encourage MBS. I doubt Clinton had an understanding of what effect repealing Glass-Steagal would have on the housing market but that really isn’t the issue.
In terms of ‘08, all of the Wall Street deregulation in the world is moot without cramming down low income mortgages at the ground level. Banks don’t lend to bad debtors, it’s not in their interest to do so, unless there is pressure to do so. And that’s the genesis of the entire crisis.
That's pretty epic level ignorance of the entire situation. What one would expect from a political hack, definitely not a finance pro.
Not a pro. I’m an operations and tech guy. But a finance acumen greater than yourself? Assuredly.
Well you certainly don't understand the mortgage industry. If you did your wouldn't make comments like you did above.
A mortgage originator will close any loan they can as long as an investor is going to buy them. And investors couldn't get their hands on enough MBS during that period, there was more demand than supply, so the investment banks kept lowering the lending standards to keep the pipeline flowing.
If you want to place blame, put it on the rating agencies that rated packages of shit loans as AAA bonds. And the investment banks that were making a shit load of money packaging and selling the shit. Everyone was making money, that's why it kept going until it blew up.
@larsiu it’s not the presidents job to encourage MBS. I doubt Clinton had an understanding of what effect repealing Glass-Steagal would have on the housing market but that really isn’t the issue.
In terms of ‘08, all of the Wall Street deregulation in the world is moot without cramming down low income mortgages at the ground level. Banks don’t lend to bad debtors, it’s not in their interest to do so, unless there is pressure to do so. And that’s the genesis of the entire crisis.
That's pretty epic level ignorance of the entire situation. What one would expect from a political hack, definitely not a finance pro.
Not a pro. I’m an operations and tech guy. But a finance acumen greater than yourself? Assuredly.
Well you certainly don't understand the mortgage industry. If you did your wouldn't make comments like you did above.
A mortgage originator will close any loan they can as long as an investor is going to buy them. And investors couldn't get their hands on enough MBS during that period, there was more demand than supply, so the investment banks kept lowering the lending standards to keep the pipeline flowing.
If you want to place blame, put it on the rating agencies that rated packages of shit loans as AAA bonds. And the investment banks that were making a shit load of money packaging and selling the shit. Everyone was making money, that's why it kept going until it blew up.
Q: Why were Fannie and Freddie buying subprime mortgages?
A: Quotas set by the Clinton admin forced them to move their portfolio from 30% to 50% subprime in 8 years.
Q: Would mortgage originators be offering said loans if they weren’t assured they would be bought.
A: No
The tweeter cut out his full quote, and I'm not sure Trump is wrong about that: short term financial hardship to ensure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon seems like a reasonable trade off.Oh I remember. I ended up getting laid off because of it. Worked for Travelers at the time and they got bought by Sandy Weill's Citicorp to become Citigroup. Downhill from there.@larsiu I know what farva is talking about tho. Repealing whatever that was in the late 90s with investment and commercial banks and allowing riskier shit. My memory is too faded and don’t understand enough about it to pin the fallout
So yeah, Dems/Pubs are all greedy bitches when you think about it. Maybe it really is just one large party focused on fucking over poor people.
Not sure what you mean. They care!!!
https://twitter.com/i/status/2054262313788768765
@larsiu it’s not the presidents job to encourage MBS. I doubt Clinton had an understanding of what effect repealing Glass-Steagal would have on the housing market but that really isn’t the issue.
In terms of ‘08, all of the Wall Street deregulation in the world is moot without cramming down low income mortgages at the ground level. Banks don’t lend to bad debtors, it’s not in their interest to do so, unless there is pressure to do so. And that’s the genesis of the entire crisis.
That's pretty epic level ignorance of the entire situation. What one would expect from a political hack, definitely not a finance pro.
Not a pro. I’m an operations and tech guy. But a finance acumen greater than yourself? Assuredly.
Well you certainly don't understand the mortgage industry. If you did your wouldn't make comments like you did above.
A mortgage originator will close any loan they can as long as an investor is going to buy them. And investors couldn't get their hands on enough MBS during that period, there was more demand than supply, so the investment banks kept lowering the lending standards to keep the pipeline flowing.
If you want to place blame, put it on the rating agencies that rated packages of shit loans as AAA bonds. And the investment banks that were making a shit load of money packaging and selling the shit. Everyone was making money, that's why it kept going until it blew up.
Q: Why were Fannie and Freddie buying subprime mortgages?
A: Quotas set by the Clinton admin forced them to move their portfolio from 30% to 50% subprime in 8 years.
Q: Would mortgage originators be offering said loans if they weren’t assured they would be bought.
A: No
@larsiu it’s not the presidents job to encourage MBS. I doubt Clinton had an understanding of what effect repealing Glass-Steagal would have on the housing market but that really isn’t the issue.
In terms of ‘08, all of the Wall Street deregulation in the world is moot without cramming down low income mortgages at the ground level. Banks don’t lend to bad debtors, it’s not in their interest to do so, unless there is pressure to do so. And that’s the genesis of the entire crisis.
That's pretty epic level ignorance of the entire situation. What one would expect from a political hack, definitely not a finance pro.
Not a pro. I’m an operations and tech guy. But a finance acumen greater than yourself? Assuredly.
Well you certainly don't understand the mortgage industry. If you did your wouldn't make comments like you did above.
A mortgage originator will close any loan they can as long as an investor is going to buy them. And investors couldn't get their hands on enough MBS during that period, there was more demand than supply, so the investment banks kept lowering the lending standards to keep the pipeline flowing.
If you want to place blame, put it on the rating agencies that rated packages of shit loans as AAA bonds. And the investment banks that were making a shit load of money packaging and selling the shit. Everyone was making money, that's why it kept going until it blew up.
Q: Why were Fannie and Freddie buying subprime mortgages?
A: Quotas set by the Clinton admin forced them to move their portfolio from 30% to 50% subprime in 8 years.
Q: Would mortgage originators be offering said loans if they weren’t assured they would be bought.
A: No
Subprime lending was a Wall Street creation. By definition subprime meant a non confirming loan, that didn't qualify to be sold to Freddie/Fannie. By the mid 2000s the GSEs started lowering their standards as they were losing market share to the non conforming market and they got into the subprime market because it was lucrative. .
The quotas you mentioned have nothing to do with subprime. Those were goals based upon the % of mortgages that were to lower-moderate income. Those were still conforming mortgages.
Subprime, What were know as Alt-A loans, ironically were typically not made to lower income groups, but often instead to 'supposedly' wealthier borrowers that that were often self employed, or even the liar loans (no doc loans).
Fannie/Freddie could and did easily hit those quotas during the regular course of their business, by issuing confirming loans. They didn't need subprime to get there. One thing they did do over this period was lower down payment requirements, so you could critique that. But it was still tied to credit scores, and full doc conforming loans.
This was all laid out in detail by all the post mortem commissions etc... Did Fannie/Freddie participate in the subprime market? yes by 2004-06 they most certainly did. But they did it because it was a lucrative market and they didn't like losing share to the non traditional space that had been created by Wall Street and non-bank originators.
@larsiu it’s not the presidents job to encourage MBS. I doubt Clinton had an understanding of what effect repealing Glass-Steagal would have on the housing market but that really isn’t the issue.
In terms of ‘08, all of the Wall Street deregulation in the world is moot without cramming down low income mortgages at the ground level. Banks don’t lend to bad debtors, it’s not in their interest to do so, unless there is pressure to do so. And that’s the genesis of the entire crisis.
That's pretty epic level ignorance of the entire situation. What one would expect from a political hack, definitely not a finance pro.
Not a pro. I’m an operations and tech guy. But a finance acumen greater than yourself? Assuredly.
Well you certainly don't understand the mortgage industry. If you did your wouldn't make comments like you did above.
A mortgage originator will close any loan they can as long as an investor is going to buy them. And investors couldn't get their hands on enough MBS during that period, there was more demand than supply, so the investment banks kept lowering the lending standards to keep the pipeline flowing.
If you want to place blame, put it on the rating agencies that rated packages of shit loans as AAA bonds. And the investment banks that were making a shit load of money packaging and selling the shit. Everyone was making money, that's why it kept going until it blew up.
Q: Why were Fannie and Freddie buying subprime mortgages?
A: Quotas set by the Clinton admin forced them to move their portfolio from 30% to 50% subprime in 8 years.
Q: Would mortgage originators be offering said loans if they weren’t assured they would be bought.
A: No
Subprime lending was a Wall Street creation. By definition subprime meant a non confirming loan, that didn't qualify to be sold to Freddie/Fannie. By the mid 2000s the GSEs started lowering their standards as they were losing market share to the non conforming market and they got into the subprime market because it was lucrative. .
The quotas you mentioned have nothing to do with subprime. Those were goals based upon the % of mortgages that were to lower-moderate income. Those were still conforming mortgages.
Subprime, What were know as Alt-A loans, ironically were typically not made to lower income groups, but often instead to 'supposedly' wealthier borrowers that that were often self employed, or even the liar loans (no doc loans).
Fannie/Freddie could and did easily hit those quotas during the regular course of their business, by issuing confirming loans. They didn't need subprime to get there. One thing they did do over this period was lower down payment requirements, so you could critique that. But it was still tied to credit scores, and full doc conforming loans.
This was all laid out in detail by all the post mortem commissions etc... Did Fannie/Freddie participate in the subprime market? yes by 2004-06 they most certainly did. But they did it because it was a lucrative market and they didn't like losing share to the non traditional space that had been created by Wall Street and non-bank originators.
You have it backwards. GSE’s were leaders in subprime investing, not followers.
Maybe the loans didn’t meet the shifting, technical definition of subprime. They were still high interest loans to poor people.
Dems will gain control of the House, and Kalshi now has the Dems at even money on taking over the Senate.
How will they fix it? Serious question. We're $39t in debt and the dollar is fading. We can't spend our way out of this. Unless inflation falls to 2% no sane person is cutting rates. AI is putting people on the streets (if not outside of the software world yet, will be soon).
Printing money just keeps inflation high. High inflation means we don't cut rates. Unemployment will grow. But we can't stim the economy b/c inflation is high b/c we're printing money.
Imma grow trees in Africa. You all have a good time.
They'll fix it by printing money. And they can do it. No need to move to Africa. Just own scarce assets and get wealthy. I know a really good one.
Clarity Act going to pass?
The quotas you mentioned have nothing to do with subprime. Those were goals based upon the % of mortgages that were to lower-moderate income. Those were still conforming mortgages.
Subprime, What were know as Alt-A loans, ironically were typically not made to lower income groups, but often instead to 'supposedly' wealthier borrowers that that were often self employed, or even the liar loans (no doc loans).
You're wasting your time. Farva is bleating the old Pub trope that the Great Recession was caused by Clinton's policies, rather than holding the GBW admin responsible for allowing the sub prime bubble to get out of control. It's a totally partisan take.
@spartans9312 not sure. There seemed to be momentum, but it's faded.
The quotas you mentioned have nothing to do with subprime. Those were goals based upon the % of mortgages that were to lower-moderate income. Those were still conforming mortgages.
Subprime, What were know as Alt-A loans, ironically were typically not made to lower income groups, but often instead to 'supposedly' wealthier borrowers that that were often self employed, or even the liar loans (no doc loans).
You're wasting your time. Farva is bleating the old Pub trope that the Great Recession was caused by Clinton's policies, rather than holding the GBW admin responsible for allowing the sub prime bubble to get out of control. It's a totally partisan take.
People can say what they want about Clinton (Slick Willy, et al.) and he definitely had a problem keeping his dick in his pants, but his presidency was highly successful, with major bipartisan achievements and economic prosperity. His budgets turned massive federal deficits into the first sustained budget surpluses in decades (1998–2001), achieving the largest debt reduction in U.S. history at the time. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act raised taxes on high earners and cut spending, fostering a strong, low-interest-rate economy. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, introduced by John Kasich, was a successful collaboration between Clinton and Republican leadership. Bubba and Newt didn't like each other but they got shit done together. That's leadership, unlike what we have today with the Buffoon-in-Chief and others.
The quotas you mentioned have nothing to do with subprime. Those were goals based upon the % of mortgages that were to lower-moderate income. Those were still conforming mortgages.
Subprime, What were know as Alt-A loans, ironically were typically not made to lower income groups, but often instead to 'supposedly' wealthier borrowers that that were often self employed, or even the liar loans (no doc loans).
You're wasting your time. Farva is bleating the old Pub trope that the Great Recession was caused by Clinton's policies, rather than holding the GBW admin responsible for allowing the sub prime bubble to get out of control. It's a totally partisan take.
People can say what they want about Clinton (Slick Willy, et al.) and he definitely had a problem keeping his dick in his pants, but his presidency was highly successful, with major bipartisan achievements and economic prosperity. His budgets turned massive federal deficits into the first sustained budget surpluses in decades (1998–2001), achieving the largest debt reduction in U.S. history at the time. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act raised taxes on high earners and cut spending, fostering a strong, low-interest-rate economy. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, introduced by John Kasich, was a successful collaboration between Clinton and Republican leadership. Bubba and Newt didn't like each other but they got shit done together. That's leadership, unlike what we have today with the Buffoon-in-Chief and others.
Why did the Dems run away from those policies? Why did they decide to go completely crazy?
@dbmhoosier because they didn’t lose enough of their own constituency with their pro-abortion policies so they added LGBTQ alphabet soup