Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street - VMS ; Neil Rieck wrote: > For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are > smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official > explanation of "derivatives" without the usual insider lingo and > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

  1. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    Neil Rieck wrote:



    > For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are
    > smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official
    > explanation of "derivatives" without the usual insider lingo and
    > you'll see what I mean). So it turns out that these people are not as
    > smart as they claim, which is not the same as criminal (lthough we do
    > have crimes involving criminal damage to society or its citizens).
    >
    > Some people say this mess was created (in part) by the synoptic view
    > of Alan Greenspan who was repeatedly warned about the sub-prime bubble
    > in 2002. But Greenspan knew better...
    >
    > http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/profile.html (be sure to
    > watch the video)
    >
    > Other people say this mess was caused (in part) by people clinging to
    > their ideologies rather than meeting in the middle after a diplomatic
    > dialog followed by debate.
    >
    > http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09262008/watch.html (be sure to
    > watch the video)
    >
    > If this crisis brings the Western-world together in a dialog about why
    > we are running stock markets like casinos, then this crisis might be a
    > good thing.
    >
    > On the flip side, these financial problems seem to come around every
    > 10 years so lets hope that this event isn't as bad as the crash of
    > 1929 which was made worse by the US Federal Government doing almost
    > nothing.
    >
    > Neil Rieck
    > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    > Ontario, Canada.
    > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/


    Thanks for the link Neil. I watched the one with Bacevich (both parts)
    and found it very interesting. I was intrigued to see an American
    finally give Pr. Carter some credit. I might even buy the book

    Cheers - Dave.

    --


  2. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    On Oct 3, 5:30*am, "David Weatherall" wrote:
    > Neil Rieck wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are
    > > smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official
    > > explanation of "derivatives" without the usual insider lingo and
    > > you'll see what I mean). So it turns out that these people are not as
    > > smart as they claim, which is not the same as criminal (lthough we do
    > > have crimes involving criminal damage to society or its citizens).

    >
    > > Some people say this mess was created (in part) by the synoptic view
    > > of Alan Greenspan who was repeatedly warned about the sub-prime bubble
    > > in 2002. But Greenspan knew better...

    >
    > >http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09...rofile.html(be sure to
    > > watch the video)

    >
    > > Other people say this mess was caused (in part) by people clinging to
    > > their ideologies rather than meeting in the middle after a diplomatic
    > > dialog followed by debate.

    >
    > >http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09.../watch.html(be sure to
    > > watch the video)

    >
    > > If this crisis brings the Western-world together in a dialog about why
    > > we are running stock markets like casinos, then this crisis might be a
    > > good thing.


    No, because there are too many innocent losers. There are many people
    are losing their homes and others losing equity (due to all the newly
    empty homes near them). Also, many businesses are losing customers.
    And then there is the potentially, if not likely, big cost to
    taxpayers. No, not a good thing.

    >
    > > On the flip side, these financial problems seem to come around every
    > > 10 years so lets hope that this event isn't as bad as the crash of
    > > 1929 which was made worse by the US Federal Government doing almost
    > > nothing.

    >
    > > Neil Rieck
    > > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    > > Ontario, Canada.
    > >http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/

    >
    > Thanks for the link Neil. I watched the one with Bacevich (both parts)
    > and found it very interesting. I was intrigued to see an American
    > finally give Pr. Carter some credit. I might even buy the book
    >
    > Cheers - Dave.
    >
    > --


    AEF

  3. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    AEF wrote:

    > No, because there are too many innocent losers. There are many people
    > are losing their homes and others losing equity (due to all the newly
    > empty homes near them). Also, many businesses are losing customers.
    > And then there is the potentially, if not likely, big cost to
    > taxpayers. No, not a good thing.


    The media make it look like people can't live anymore. Have banks
    started to lower people's credit card limits ?

    Are small businesses *REALLY* unable to use their lines of credit anymore ?

    I realise that the housing market is in shambles and this affects the
    value of homes of people who pay their mortgages normally, and if the
    value of home goes below the value of the mortgage, the bank may decide
    to foreclose. (which is one reason banks in most other countries don't
    lend 100% of the value of the home).

    But have banks REALLY REALLY stopped offering loans to people and
    businesses ?

    The biggest leveraged buyout in history (a pension plan + a bunch of US
    banks getting together to buy Bell Canada and make it private) is still
    on. That is something like 35 billion of credit that US banks are to
    offer to the ontario teachers pension plan.

    Well Fargo still has some cash because it just signed the deal to buy
    Wachovia for 15 billion. Chase got a few thousand branched a whole lot
    of new customers for a mere 1.9 billion.

    What I see happening in the USA is that Wall Street banks (with a few
    other big ones like Wells Fargo) are taking advantage of the situation
    to help transform the USA banking sector into a new condensed version
    with a few very large nationwide banks, a culmination of the long
    process that began when the USA was made up of small local banks that
    could only operate within their state. From a stability point of view,
    this is probably better and probably required. And by having banks that
    have large retail operations, they become self funded and can use their
    own customer's deposits to issue loans/mortgages instead of borrowing
    from some other bank.

    But it is clear in my mind that the wall street banks are taking
    advantage of the situtation and making things look far worse than they
    really are to force the government to cough up the 700 billion in cold
    hard freshly printed cash. Converting all those bonds of uncertain value
    into cash would let them comtinue their current buying spree and see
    continuation of the concentration of the banking sector. And this woudl
    explain why Washington is so focused on helping Wall Street Banks since
    the eventual goal is to have them rule the banking sector and thus no
    need to bail out the smaller banks which will cease to exist anyways.

    Many analysts have stated that the governmnet simply needed to change
    some accounting rules to allow banks to value bonds at their normal
    value for a couple of years, thus avoiding the requirement to write the
    value down until the bond matures. This would cost a hell of a lot less
    to taxpayers.

    And if Chase is unwilling to lend to Bank of Podunk, couldn't Bank of
    Podunk borrow from the governmnet (Fed, or via Fanny/Freddie) for
    mortgages ? (isn't that what those banks did in the past anyways ?)



    And if banks had not been so quick to foreclose, this whole problem
    wouldn't exist. Yes, many mortgages would not be performing as well, but
    that is still much better that a mortgage that doesn't perform at all.

  4. RE: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
    > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:23 AM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street
    >
    >
    > I realise that the housing market is in shambles and this
    > affects the value of homes of people who pay their mortgages
    > normally, and if the value of home goes below the value of
    > the mortgage, the bank may decide to foreclose. (which is one
    > reason banks in most other countries don't lend 100% of the
    > value of the home).
    >

    In the US a bank cannot foreclose because the market value of the home has
    fallen below the mortgaged debt!!! They foreclose when the payment of the
    mortgage debt is delinquent.




  5. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    In article <062401c92554$ee3103c0$1f3a0681@sdct.nist.gov>,
    "Dan Allen" writes:
    >
    >
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca]
    >> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:23 AM
    >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    >> Subject: Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street
    >>
    >>
    >> I realise that the housing market is in shambles and this
    >> affects the value of homes of people who pay their mortgages
    >> normally, and if the value of home goes below the value of
    >> the mortgage, the bank may decide to foreclose. (which is one
    >> reason banks in most other countries don't lend 100% of the
    >> value of the home).
    >>

    > In the US a bank cannot foreclose because the market value of the home has
    > fallen below the mortgaged debt!!! They foreclose when the payment of the
    > mortgage debt is delinquent.


    And when you have people working at McDonald's for minimum wage buying
    $500,000 houses what do you exepct to happen? Just how naive do you
    have to be when you take that 2% Adjustable Rate Mortgage to actually
    believe it will stay where it is or go down? The banks may carry some
    of the blame (although the government trying to use them for more of
    its liberal social engineering probably carries a large piece of that)
    but the individuals who thought they were going to get something for
    nothing carry the majority of the blame.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  6. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    AEF wrote:
    > On Oct 3, 5:30 am, "David Weatherall" wrote:
    >> Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are
    >>> smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official
    >>> explanation of "derivatives" without the usual insider lingo and
    >>> you'll see what I mean). So it turns out that these people are not as
    >>> smart as they claim, which is not the same as criminal (lthough we do
    >>> have crimes involving criminal damage to society or its citizens).
    >>> Some people say this mess was created (in part) by the synoptic view
    >>> of Alan Greenspan who was repeatedly warned about the sub-prime bubble
    >>> in 2002. But Greenspan knew better...
    >>> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09...rofile.html(be sure to
    >>> watch the video)
    >>> Other people say this mess was caused (in part) by people clinging to
    >>> their ideologies rather than meeting in the middle after a diplomatic
    >>> dialog followed by debate.
    >>> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09.../watch.html(be sure to
    >>> watch the video)
    >>> If this crisis brings the Western-world together in a dialog about why
    >>> we are running stock markets like casinos, then this crisis might be a
    >>> good thing.

    >
    > No, because there are too many innocent losers. There are many people
    > are losing their homes and others losing equity (due to all the newly
    > empty homes near them). Also, many businesses are losing customers.
    > And then there is the potentially, if not likely, big cost to
    > taxpayers. No, not a good thing.


    INNOCENT?? I doubt it very much! When you buy a house and mortgage it,
    you are supposed to know that you must make monthly payments of X
    dollars per month for Y years. You are supposed to have an income
    sufficient to make those payments as well as feed your family, pay
    taxes, health care, etc, etc. The customary penalty for failure to pay
    is to lose the house! The agreement you sign says all this and, by
    signing your name, you agree to it.

    Nothing guarantees the resale value of your new home! The selling price
    will depend on the condition of the property, the current market, the
    availability of credit, the property taxes that must be paid, the
    condition of neighboring property, etc, etc. To say that the resale
    value will fluctuate can be one of those major understatements. . . .

    The current "crisis" appears to be the result of poor judgment on the
    part of just about everyone involved. People seem to have purchased
    homes and taken mortgages at the limit of, or somewhat beyond, their
    ability to pay. Loan officers appear to have given insufficient weight
    to the borrower's present and future ability to pay the interest and
    principal! They also appear to have ignored the possible changes in the
    market value of the property securing the loan!

    "Not a good thing!" is a statement I think we can all agree with.

  7. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    In article <6kmkofF8m3t7U1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >{...snip...}
    >
    >And when you have people working at McDonald's for minimum wage buying
    >$500,000 houses what do you exepct to happen? Just how naive do you
    >have to be when you take that 2% Adjustable Rate Mortgage to actually
    >believe it will stay where it is or go down? The banks may carry some
    >of the blame (although the government trying to use them for more of
    >its liberal social engineering probably carries a large piece of that)
    >but the individuals who thought they were going to get something for
    >nothing carry the majority of the blame.


    Alleluia brother!

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    .... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection
    no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC)

    Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside
    of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright
    notice, disclaimer and quotations.

  8. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

    > The current "crisis" appears to be the result of poor judgment on the
    > part of just about everyone involved.


    While logically, you are correct, one needs to look at the fact that
    historically, the banks were the ones telling people whether they could
    afford a home and how expensive a home they could afford. You'd walk up
    to the bank, give them your salary, expenses, they'd punch it into their
    computer, the computer would check your credit rating, compute all of
    that and spit out "this customer can be given a mortgage of up to $X.".

    So customers had an implicit trust in a bank's judgement when a bank
    told them they could afford a mortgage of up to $X.

    And the government has had a low interest rate policy for the last 7-8
    years now in order to try to stimulate an anemic USA economy. The
    problem is that buying chinese made widgets at wallmart on your credit
    card doesn't stimulate the USA economy much.

    The other big problem is that not only are individuals living on credit,
    but the country as a whole is via the fact that it consumes more than it
    produces. This is not sustainable. And it will be a very rude awakening
    for many americans to accept that they will have to curb their way of life.

    The current bunch have been telling americans that there is no reason
    for them to ever curb their way of life and that they will will defend
    every american's god given right to drive a hummer and buy as much gas
    as they want at affordable prices.

    It is very hard politically for a president to admit that the above is
    not sustainable and that things must change.

    Instead of the USA changing on its own, the changes are now being
    imposed on them by the credit indigestion and high oil prices.

    The problem is that USA car companies who worked so hard to convince
    americans they absolutely needed SUVs are now stuck in a situation where
    they have no small cars and it will take years for them to gear down to
    transform their production of SUvs into production of small cars. The
    USA economy is highly dependant on the car industry, and the problems of
    the USA car makers should be a huge worry to americans.

    It is ironic that SMART car sales have risen by 50% at a time when the
    USA car makers are seeing sales drop by 30%. It is doubly ironic that at
    while Chrysler was part of DaimlerBenz, Chrysler had refused to
    distribute the Smart car in the USA.


    What is happening in the USA is the perfect example of what happens when
    a governmnet (or successive governments) refuse to acknowledge a
    problem, slip it under a rug and tell citizens to not worry about it.
    Eventually, the problem surfaces and rears its ugly head because by the
    time it can't be hidden anymore, it is way too big and cannot be managed.

    Whether it be excessive credit or the environment, countries who don't
    act early to put the country in the right direction end up arriving at a
    precipice at high speed and it becomes extremely hard to change course
    before reaching it.


  9. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    JF Mezei wrote:
    >
    > Well Fargo still has some cash because it just signed the deal to buy
    > Wachovia for 15 billion. Chase got a few thousand branched a whole lot
    > of new customers for a mere 1.9 billion.


    No cash involved. Reportedly, WF bought Wachovia in a stock swap.
    --
    Cheers, Bob

  10. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    Dan Allen wrote:

    > or near it's "rated" value and infuse them with some real liquidity. For good or
    > bad we just signed the check this afternoon. If all we have to eat is a 5-6%
    > default loss on the $700B I'll consider it a success. I'm not so sure we'll be
    > that lucky.


    What is happening now is an indigestion following a huge binge. From now
    on, expect credit to be much tighter because banks will not want to take
    risks (aka: USA banks will become stingy like the rest of the world's
    banks).

    As a result, the economic activity will drop back to a "normal"
    sustainable level. Moving from an "excessive" to a "normal" economic
    activity level implies a recession. Combine this adjustement to
    economic level with the woes of the USA car industry and it could be
    pretty significant.

    It isn't the Wall Street banks that need bailing out. It is the economy.
    If the USA were headed by a "Green" party, they would have long ago
    taken action to force the car makers to move to fuel efficient smaller
    cars and alternate energy cars. And they would not be suffering like
    they are suffering now. Instead, the current administration has fostered
    the "you have a right to a Hummer" mentality of refusing to move to
    smaller cars.

    The car industry is really a key to the USA economy. Lots of employees,
    and generates activity in many core industries such as steel, aluminium,
    plastics, electronics, components, transportation and whatever else goes
    into cars.


  11. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    In article <48e69aa0$0$12360$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >{...snip...}
    >It isn't the Wall Street banks that need bailing out. It is the economy.
    >If the USA were headed by a "Green" party, they would have long ago
    >taken action to force the car makers to move to fuel efficient smaller
    >cars and alternate energy cars. And they would not be suffering like


    Take a look on the roads here JF, those aren't American cars for the most
    part. It seems the rest of the world's (Japan/far east and european) auto
    makers have been shoring up their economies selling theirs to the American
    consumer.


    >they are suffering now. Instead, the current administration has fostered
    >the "you have a right to a Hummer" mentality of refusing to move to
    >smaller cars.


    The current administration fostered this? Damn, I wish I wouldn't have
    missed the 90s.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    .... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection
    no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC)

    Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside
    of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright
    notice, disclaimer and quotations.

  12. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    On Oct 3, 12:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    wrote:
    > AEF wrote:
    > > On Oct 3, 5:30 am, "David Weatherall" wrote:
    > >> Neil Rieck wrote:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are
    > >>> smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official
    > >>> explanation of "derivatives" without the usual insider lingo and
    > >>> you'll see what I mean). So it turns out that these people are not as
    > >>> smart as they claim, which is not the same as criminal (lthough we do
    > >>> have crimes involving criminal damage to society or its citizens).
    > >>> Some people say this mess was created (in part) by the synoptic view
    > >>> of Alan Greenspan who was repeatedly warned about the sub-prime bubble
    > >>> in 2002. But Greenspan knew better...
    > >>>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09...le.html(besure to
    > >>> watch the video)
    > >>> Other people say this mess was caused (in part) by people clinging to
    > >>> their ideologies rather than meeting in the middle after a diplomatic
    > >>> dialog followed by debate.
    > >>>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09...ch.html(besure to
    > >>> watch the video)
    > >>> If this crisis brings the Western-world together in a dialog about why
    > >>> we are running stock markets like casinos, then this crisis might be a
    > >>> good thing.

    >
    > > No, because there are too many innocent losers. There are many people
    > > are losing their homes and others losing equity (due to all the newly
    > > empty homes near them). Also, many businesses are losing customers.
    > > And then there is the potentially, if not likely, big cost to
    > > taxpayers. No, not a good thing.

    >
    > INNOCENT?? I doubt it very much! When you buy a house and mortgage it,
    > you are supposed to know that you must make monthly payments of X
    > dollars per month for Y years. You are supposed to have an income
    > sufficient to make those payments as well as feed your family, pay
    > taxes, health care, etc, etc. The customary penalty for failure to pay
    > is to lose the house! The agreement you sign says all this and, by
    > signing your name, you agree to it.


    Richard,

    There is an Op-ed in today's New York Times called "The Borrowers" by
    Bethany McLean. She blames more or less everyone involved (although to
    different degrees and in different ways and with different gains and
    losses . . . ). But while describing all the bad things that
    homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who
    were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate
    mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different
    category." Are these people not "INNOCENT"? Please. Have you never
    been ripped off? Never bought a car that turned out to be a lemon?
    (You should have known about every part in the car and its
    condition. . .) Never made a mistake? Add to this all the sales
    pressure. Never lost a job? Never signed something you later
    regretted? C'mon: Give people a break!

    Consider the case in which you leave your house unlocked, perhaps by
    carelessness or hurrying to work, and have your stuff taken away by a
    burglar. Yes, you are partly to blame. But are you going to let the
    burglar off scot-free? I don't think so!

    Are you going to let Bill Gates off scot-free because it was all the
    dumb customers who bought, and continue to buy, his crappy operating
    system? I admit, though, that some of them are really dumb. There are
    those who even think Bill Gates is some kind of great benevolent
    genius, without which the country would be far worse off. I once read
    a letter to the editor (yes, in the NYT -- what else? :-) suggesting
    that we use the "genius of Bill Gates" to help something or other
    (blind people? I forget). Then, to continue this fun aside, I quote
    from an advertisement on the Op-ed page in the 2007-03-26 edition
    of. . .drum roll. . . . . . .The New York Times, placed by the
    Washington Legal Foundation. It begins: IN ALL FAIRNESS / The Rise and
    Fall of America? / These days, our legal and regulatory system seems
    to only create jobs for lawyers, accountants, and bureaucrats, while
    scaring away the next Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. . . ." and it
    continues with details and such (but not about BG or WB).

    > Nothing guarantees the resale value of your new home! The selling price
    > will depend on the condition of the property, the current market, the
    > availability of credit, the property taxes that must be paid, the
    > condition of neighboring property, etc, etc. To say that the resale
    > value will fluctuate can be one of those major understatements. . . .


    Well, according to this logic you should NEVER buy a home, for its
    value may plummet to zero at any time. And you may, in an
    unforeseeable manner, lose a high-paying job only to be stuck with a
    much lower-paying one. You cannot go through life without taking SOME
    risks.

    > The current "crisis" appears to be the result of poor judgment on the
    > part of just about everyone involved. People seem to have purchased


    I believe there were also a lot of ill-motives involved by at least
    some. For example, didn't these bankers and such iteratively pass off
    these bad loans and mortgage-backed securities to others, thereby
    washing their hands of them at each level?

    > homes and taken mortgages at the limit of, or somewhat beyond, their
    > ability to pay. Loan officers appear to have given insufficient weight
    > to the borrower's present and future ability to pay the interest and
    > principal! They also appear to have ignored the possible changes in the
    > market value of the property securing the loan!
    >
    > "Not a good thing!" is a statement I think we can all agree with.


    You also failed to notice the other things I said:

    Other losers include people who did the right thing and still lost
    much of their equity due to their neighborhoods having been turned
    into foreclosure city. How are they to blame?

    Also, there are many legitimate businesses that are losing customers
    -- some losing some of their biggest customers! (I have no references
    for this but I am seeing it with my own eyes and cannot go into detail
    here.)

    And what about those who lose their jobs due to recessionary forces
    that are a consequence of all this malfeasance? How are they to blame?

    Not a good thing, indeed!

    AEF

  13. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    AEF wrote:

    > homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who
    > were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate
    > mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different
    > category." Are these people not "INNOCENT"? Please.



    Another aspect is that confidentiality issues prevent a new homeowner
    from finding out whether the whole neighbouhood is financed with
    sub-prime mortgages with people having 100% of value mortgaged or not.


    NOW, people would think about asking about the financing of the
    neighbourhood. But back then, people didn't know about the risk of
    having a whole neighbourhood with risky finance leading to possible
    market depression when banks seize so many properties at roughly the
    same time.

    People also thought that banks would never get themselves in a situation
    where they would risk foreclosing a whole neighbourhood. (aka: people
    thought that banks had proper risk management policies and evidently,
    they did not.

    What banks SHOULD have done (easier said with hindsight) is to
    foreclose, but turn the property into a rental property with the family
    making some reasonable payments. This would have kept many homes off
    the market, maintained the value of homes, and if the renter got into
    better financial situation, he could then negotiate to transfer the
    rental back into a mortgage. (Or if the bank found a buyer for the
    property, they could then sell the house)

    This would be similar to airlines. If you're going to have a plane go
    from JFK to LAX and you have empty seats, you might as well give those
    seats to anyone at any low fare instead of getting nothing at all.

    If a bank is going to have ownership of a home that it can't sell, it
    might as well rent it at some low affordable rate the the family that
    stayed there instead of leaving the home empty (especially since empty
    homes tend to be vandalised and lose even more value)


  14. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

    > AEF wrote:


    >> But while describing all the bad things that
    >> homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who
    >> were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate
    >> mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different
    >> category."

    >
    > Those people appear, to me, to have failed to read and understand what
    > they agreed to. It does not matter, legally, what they were told.


    Well, at least in Sweden, it does matter *a lot* what your
    bankman actual *told* you ! There has been quite a few cases
    where peoples has got their right against some bank that
    had talked them into some business.


  15. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >
    >> AEF wrote:

    >
    >>> But while describing all the bad things that
    >>> homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who
    >>> were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate
    >>> mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different
    >>> category."

    >>
    >> Those people appear, to me, to have failed to read and understand what
    >> they agreed to. It does not matter, legally, what they were told.

    >
    > Well, at least in Sweden, it does matter *a lot* what your
    > bankman actual *told* you ! There has been quite a few cases
    > where peoples has got their right against some bank that
    > had talked them into some business.
    >


    In the U.S. a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on!
    Honest men generally do as they have promised but if matters get to
    court, it's the written agreement that counts, not what the parties
    agreed to verbally.

  16. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    In article , "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>
    >>> AEF wrote:

    >>
    >>>> But while describing all the bad things that
    >>>> homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who
    >>>> were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate
    >>>> mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different
    >>>> category."
    >>>
    >>> Those people appear, to me, to have failed to read and understand what
    >>> they agreed to. It does not matter, legally, what they were told.

    >>
    >> Well, at least in Sweden, it does matter *a lot* what your
    >> bankman actual *told* you ! There has been quite a few cases
    >> where peoples has got their right against some bank that
    >> had talked them into some business.
    >>

    >
    >In the U.S. a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on!
    >Honest men generally do as they have promised but if matters get to
    >court, it's the written agreement that counts, not what the parties
    >agreed to verbally.


    ....and produce any piece of paper, no matter how dubious its veracity, and
    the courts will entertain it, especially if the plaintiff is the source of
    its production! US courts need to cease playing the plaintiff favoritism
    gambit and yielding to the financial fianchetto of the opening movers! It
    makes for a difficult game to win.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    .... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection
    no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC)

    Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside
    of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright
    notice, disclaimer and quotations.

  17. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article , "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> AEF wrote:
    >>>>> But while describing all the bad things that
    >>>>> homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who
    >>>>> were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate
    >>>>> mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different
    >>>>> category."
    >>>> Those people appear, to me, to have failed to read and understand what
    >>>> they agreed to. It does not matter, legally, what they were told.
    >>> Well, at least in Sweden, it does matter *a lot* what your
    >>> bankman actual *told* you ! There has been quite a few cases
    >>> where peoples has got their right against some bank that
    >>> had talked them into some business.
    >>>

    >> In the U.S. a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on!
    >> Honest men generally do as they have promised but if matters get to
    >> court, it's the written agreement that counts, not what the parties
    >> agreed to verbally.

    >
    > ...and produce any piece of paper, no matter how dubious its veracity, and
    > the courts will entertain it, especially if the plaintiff is the source of
    > its production! US courts need to cease playing the plaintiff favoritism
    > gambit and yielding to the financial fianchetto of the opening movers! It
    > makes for a difficult game to win.
    >


    I find it a little difficult to believe that the courts will "entertain"
    just any bit of paper! If the paper contains some sort of written
    agreement and the signatures of both parties to the agreement, THEN the
    court may be expected to take it seriously. If the signatures are
    witnessed, the court would be likely to take that piece of paper very
    seriously.



  18. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >
    >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>
    >>> AEF wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >>>> But while describing all the bad things that
    >>>> homeowners did she adds the following parenthetical remark: "Those who
    >>>> were lied to by bookers about the reset rates on adjustable-rate
    >>>> mortgages and other elements of their loans are in a different
    >>>> category."
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Those people appear, to me, to have failed to read and understand
    >>> what they agreed to. It does not matter, legally, what they were told.

    >>
    >>
    >> Well, at least in Sweden, it does matter *a lot* what your
    >> bankman actual *told* you ! There has been quite a few cases
    >> where peoples has got their right against some bank that
    >> had talked them into some business.
    >>

    >
    > In the U.S. a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on!
    > Honest men generally do as they have promised but if matters get to
    > court, it's the written agreement that counts, not what the parties
    > agreed to verbally.


    Not quite true. Verbal agreements are enforceable in court. In practice,
    of course, it is frequently difficult to supply evidence of a verbal
    agreement, unless there is a credible (unbiased) witness or a recording.

    It is true that a verbal modification to a written agreement will be
    ignored by the court; i.e., the court will only recognize the base
    written document.
    --
    Cheers, Bob

  19. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    On Oct 3, 12:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    wrote:
    > AEF wrote:
    > > On Oct 3, 5:30 am, "David Weatherall" wrote:
    > >> Neil Rieck wrote:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> For the longest time, people in the financial sector claimed they are
    > >>> smart while the rest of us are dumb. (Try getting an official
    > >>> explanation of "derivatives" without the usual insider lingo and
    > >>> you'll see what I mean). So it turns out that these people are not as
    > >>> smart as they claim, which is not the same as criminal (lthough we do
    > >>> have crimes involving criminal damage to society or its citizens).
    > >>> Some people say this mess was created (in part) by the synoptic view
    > >>> of Alan Greenspan who was repeatedly warned about the sub-prime bubble
    > >>> in 2002. But Greenspan knew better...
    > >>>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09...le.html(besure to
    > >>> watch the video)
    > >>> Other people say this mess was caused (in part) by people clinging to
    > >>> their ideologies rather than meeting in the middle after a diplomatic
    > >>> dialog followed by debate.
    > >>>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09...ch.html(besure to
    > >>> watch the video)
    > >>> If this crisis brings the Western-world together in a dialog about why
    > >>> we are running stock markets like casinos, then this crisis might be a
    > >>> good thing.

    >
    > > No, because there are too many innocent losers. There are many people
    > > are losing their homes and others losing equity (due to all the newly
    > > empty homes near them). Also, many businesses are losing customers.
    > > And then there is the potentially, if not likely, big cost to
    > > taxpayers. No, not a good thing.

    >
    > INNOCENT?? I doubt it very much! When you buy a house and mortgage it,
    > you are supposed to know that you must make monthly payments of X
    > dollars per month for Y years. You are supposed to have an income
    > sufficient to make those payments as well as feed your family, pay
    > taxes, health care, etc, etc. The customary penalty for failure to pay
    > is to lose the house! The agreement you sign says all this and, by
    > signing your name, you agree to it.
    >
    > Nothing guarantees the resale value of your new home! The selling price
    > will depend on the condition of the property, the current market, the
    > availability of credit, the property taxes that must be paid, the
    > condition of neighboring property, etc, etc. To say that the resale
    > value will fluctuate can be one of those major understatements. . . .
    >
    > The current "crisis" appears to be the result of poor judgment on the
    > part of just about everyone involved. People seem to have purchased
    > homes and taken mortgages at the limit of, or somewhat beyond, their
    > ability to pay. Loan officers appear to have given insufficient weight
    > to the borrower's present and future ability to pay the interest and
    > principal! They also appear to have ignored the possible changes in the
    > market value of the property securing the loan!


    I think some of them probably did these bad loans because they got to
    pass them off to someone else. So I think it's a combination of poor
    judgment and malfeasance.

    > "Not a good thing!" is a statement I think we can all agree with.


    AEF

  20. Re: OT: USA the fleecing of USA banks by Wall Street

    In article , "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >AEF wrote:
    >> On Oct 5, 4:44 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    >> wrote:
    >>> AEF wrote:
    >>>> On Oct 3, 10:44 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> AEF wrote:
    >>>>>> On Oct 3, 12:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>> AEF wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 5:30 am, "David Weatherall" wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Neil Rieck wrote:


    >> When you buy food at the supermarket, do you weigh everything? No, you
    >> don't. So if you buy a can of soup that says its net weight is 19 oz.,
    >> but it's really only 15 oz., whose fault is it? If you buy 15 gallons
    >> of gas, but you get only 10 because you didn't measure it before
    >> putting it in your tank, whose fault is it?

    >
    >This is a problem that I don't recall EVER having encountered. The
    >government takes weights and measures seriously. If you sell a gallon
    >of gasoline, you had better deliver a minimum of one gallon. ISTR
    >seeing seals on gasoline pumps that say that the metering has been
    >tested and that when the machine says it has delivered one gallon, it
    >has in fact delivered one gallon. If you look closely at the scales in
    >a supermarket, you will see a sticker that says that the government has
    >tested the scale and that it registers correctly. I'm sure that there
    >are a few dealers who cheat and that it's very few; the penalties and
    >the reputation as a cheat are something most people want no part of.
    >
    >The companies that can vegetables or package frozen vegetables are
    >careful about labeling things as what they are. They also care about
    >customer satisfaction. I once wrote a complaint letter to Birdseye
    >because a package labeled "Peas and Onions" contained only ONE onion
    >where the use of the plural required a minimum of two! I got an apology
    >and a coupon good for another package of peas and onions.


    This is only because the inspectors ie regulators do their job when checking
    weights and measures and come down hard on anyone breaking those regulations.
    Unfortunately the same cannot be said for financial regulation.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast