Bush's subprime plan -- Paul's take?
- Thread starter rodent
- Start date
How dare you suggest people should be responsible for thier own finances! Do you think the government is just there to look pretty?
Johnnybags
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,126
Central planning from Washington
Yes, Its always nice when government decides to bail out a special interest and inflate everything to do it. Imagine, the federal government is now waisting its days playing with private markets, I thought winners and losers come out of private market transactions? Not anymore, the losers are us always. United Socialists of America. Pathetic. At least steal back equity on the sale of homes you subsidize.
Yes, Its always nice when government decides to bail out a special interest and inflate everything to do it. Imagine, the federal government is now waisting its days playing with private markets, I thought winners and losers come out of private market transactions? Not anymore, the losers are us always. United Socialists of America. Pathetic. At least steal back equity on the sale of homes you subsidize.
Last edited:
Johnnybags
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,126
It is designed as a confidence boost
apparently, plenty of pink slips coming to Wall St. and I cannot imagine Long Island having many adjustables needing fixing, unless the FED wants to bail out Long Island traders,Greenwich hedge funds, and the like it is putting a finger in the dike. I gotta say I am sick of federal intervention in the markets on a daily basis. Is it against the law to have a correction or have a few large bank mergers? At any rate all of these actions will usher in stagflation. The worst of all possible worlds.
apparently, plenty of pink slips coming to Wall St. and I cannot imagine Long Island having many adjustables needing fixing, unless the FED wants to bail out Long Island traders,Greenwich hedge funds, and the like it is putting a finger in the dike. I gotta say I am sick of federal intervention in the markets on a daily basis. Is it against the law to have a correction or have a few large bank mergers? At any rate all of these actions will usher in stagflation. The worst of all possible worlds.
I thought you needed the Franklin glasses to see it like in American Treasure.
lol (national treasure by the way)
Blowback
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 471
I feel bad for the people who got suckered into those loans and everything but the bottum line is that this will just make people who have an appropriate loan and people who even just rent have to subsidize those who make poor decisions (on both sides of the ilse - loaner and borrower).
I'm glad I'm not knee deep in debt but it sorta sucks to have to pay to bail out those who made the wrong decision.
I'm glad I'm not knee deep in debt but it sorta sucks to have to pay to bail out those who made the wrong decision.
Kregener
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,451
I am guessing that we ALL know that GeeDub hasn't "outlined" or "drawn up" anything having to do with this, right?
He simply is not smart enough to do it.
The government is swiftly losing control of their ability to stave off the collapse.
Brace yourselves...
He simply is not smart enough to do it.
The government is swiftly losing control of their ability to stave off the collapse.
Brace yourselves...
surf
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,740
"Pimco's Gross"
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Gross was looking for a bailout. The worst thing i've heard is the talk about "not bailing out Wall St."
They (meaning the Fed) have already been doing so. It's really why there wasn't an implosion on 8/15 when redemption requests were due for some types of funds.
it's easy to blame borrowers and lenders for "getting in over their heads" or for "unscrupulous disclosure," yet as a fixed-income portfolio manager, my perspective has always been that this occured primarily because of cheap money and low interest rates.
Low interest rates placed pressure on investment portfolio managers to increase yield, which led to a vibrant (though deficient) secondary mortgage market in lower credit mortgage-backed securities. Excluding myself as a purchaser, i found that Wall St. sold these securities under ludicrous assumptions regarding prepayment and default rates. But they did so most portfolio managers (present excluded) bought into the "street" consensus (which Bloomberg's system incorporated into its "industry standard" pricing model), and for reasons stated earlier, these securities were sold at high prices.
Marking (down) to market, at quarter-end, will be difficult and painful again, particularly since getting an honest indicative bid on some of the crap in portfolios will be nearly impossible for many. I've heard that "pricing models" - the same used to sell many of these securities - are not incorporating the true depth of this clusterf#ck. Thus, reported losses probably will not mirror the true value of many portfolios.
Just my .02. Go Huskies!
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Gross was looking for a bailout. The worst thing i've heard is the talk about "not bailing out Wall St."
They (meaning the Fed) have already been doing so. It's really why there wasn't an implosion on 8/15 when redemption requests were due for some types of funds.
it's easy to blame borrowers and lenders for "getting in over their heads" or for "unscrupulous disclosure," yet as a fixed-income portfolio manager, my perspective has always been that this occured primarily because of cheap money and low interest rates.
Low interest rates placed pressure on investment portfolio managers to increase yield, which led to a vibrant (though deficient) secondary mortgage market in lower credit mortgage-backed securities. Excluding myself as a purchaser, i found that Wall St. sold these securities under ludicrous assumptions regarding prepayment and default rates. But they did so most portfolio managers (present excluded) bought into the "street" consensus (which Bloomberg's system incorporated into its "industry standard" pricing model), and for reasons stated earlier, these securities were sold at high prices.
Marking (down) to market, at quarter-end, will be difficult and painful again, particularly since getting an honest indicative bid on some of the crap in portfolios will be nearly impossible for many. I've heard that "pricing models" - the same used to sell many of these securities - are not incorporating the true depth of this clusterf#ck. Thus, reported losses probably will not mirror the true value of many portfolios.
Just my .02. Go Huskies!
Last edited:
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
I do feel bad for some of the people who were suckered. A significant number of them were "baited and switched" at the closing table. My lender tried to do that, and I walked away. My Mom didn't raise a fool, but so many people get emotionally invested in the purchase of a home (especially the first home) that even I can understand how it happened.
But, the government shouldn't bail them out. I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to pay for it.
ON the other hand, there are people that work serious mortgage fraud in this area. Some of them prey on the elderly and the mentally challenged, but some of them flat out just forge documents. And yet the people still lose their houses? What kind of a system do we have that allows people to lose their home because a shyster forged signatures and filed papers?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way.
But, the government shouldn't bail them out. I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to pay for it.
ON the other hand, there are people that work serious mortgage fraud in this area. Some of them prey on the elderly and the mentally challenged, but some of them flat out just forge documents. And yet the people still lose their houses? What kind of a system do we have that allows people to lose their home because a shyster forged signatures and filed papers?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way.
Sematary
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 6,428
Paul's take? That is easy - we shouldn't do it.
Sematary
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 6,428
apparently not.
ChooseLiberty
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,509
As some people have noted already -
More inflation and an implicit tax on anyone holding $USD.
Greenspan (Mr. Bubble) left a nice sh*t sandwich for Bernanke and skated to the lecture circuit.
Big brother memo: Not only must we protect the soccer mommies and baby Muffy from "terrists" at any and all costs, we must also protect the soccer mommies against their own stupidity and greed by bailing them out at any cost. We must maintain our ability to produce more sheeple. <Cue "the children are our future" song here>
More inflation and an implicit tax on anyone holding $USD.
Greenspan (Mr. Bubble) left a nice sh*t sandwich for Bernanke and skated to the lecture circuit.
Big brother memo: Not only must we protect the soccer mommies and baby Muffy from "terrists" at any and all costs, we must also protect the soccer mommies against their own stupidity and greed by bailing them out at any cost. We must maintain our ability to produce more sheeple. <Cue "the children are our future" song here>
Similar threads
