User Panel
|
|
A bond is a loan. A mortgage based bond is just that, a stack of mortgages used as collateral for the bond.
If the mortgage holders fail to pay, the bond holder can turn to the bond seller (borrower) for repayment. When the mortgage market collapsed, like in 2008-2010, those holders turned to the banks for payment of the principle. Since the bonds were bought at a premium, the banks had to pay back at the premium price. Example, I pay you $1.5Million for a package of mortgages in a bond. The mortgages go bad, say 50% of them. The bank is now holding $750k in bad loans, $700k in good loans but still owes the bond holder $1.5Million. The bank has not only lost the $700k but also $1.5Million for a total of $2.1 million. The bank still holds $750k in loans but they won't be paid in forever and nobody will buy them. Now convert the millions to billions. |
|
LOL, it's been pointed out several times in this thread that this wasn't Obama's doing yet people continue to bark about it. Trained seals display more critical thinking skills than some folks it seems.
|
|
Quoted:
The govt had very little to do with it. Mortgage brokers were chasing fees, the banks were chasing fees, the people buying the CDO's were chasing yield. Nonconforming and Subprime loans offered higher yields and fees. It was a shit show. The bankers got greedy and it blew up in their face. They did not learn a damn thing because the govt. bailed their ass out. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't the whole thing with shaky loans because the government started pressuring lenders to lend to people with shoddy credit with some promise of being recouped? |
|
-Bankers and politicians made a whole lot of stupid loans, to stupid people, for stupid reasons.
-Loans defaulted for obvious reasons if you ever read a financial text book. -Instead of going to jail for fraud, corruption and the like. Banks got a bail out. And one of the greatest financial heists in history took place and no one cared. Or even understood what was happening. |
|
People were given interest only loans with principle balloon payments they couldn’t possibly pay back.
It was all a shell game playing with money that didn’t actually exist. The buyers were told that because the housing market was growing they had “instant equity” and could sell the home for a profit in a few years before the balloon note came due. We are talking payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars due once the calendar required. Those risky loans were repackaged and sold as prime investments and the can just kept being kicked down the road, a high stakes game of hot potato. Eventually, someone caught the potato and the game ended. |
|
Quoted:
A fifth grader can debunk your theory. The housing market crashed in December of 2008. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th 2009. View Quote |
|
I remember “Interest only” loans. Who could have thought that was a good idea.
|
|
Question for knowledge people because I don’t know
Did Bush handle the crash the right way with the bailout! Should he have let it crash and correct itself? Possibly something in between? |
|
Quoted:
Mortgage backed bonds are simply instruments that pay out cashflows that come from the underlying mortgages. There are several different types. A CDO is a broader category. A MBS can be thought of as a type of CDO. A CDO can exist without actually being backed by the underlying asset, instead using derivative products bundled together. They end up essentially being a side bet on the underlying asset, in a sense. So, the money simply comes from a counter party that is willing to bet against you. These positions may not be "naked" in the sense that the people using the CDOs or derivative products may have certain exposures (like they've sold insurance against a product, and are trying to offset some of the risk associated with that) that they are trying to hedge. Or, they could simply be speculating. It gets complicated in a hurry. The market meltdown can boil down to this. The government had been subsidizing the housing market for a long, long time through federal lending programs. This helped people buy houses even though they couldn't normally have gotten loans via normal processes at banks. These mortgages had insurance on them, the government promised to pay the banks if the borrower's defaulted. These mortgages were fairly uniform debts, they shared a lot of common features, and they were all backed by insurance (VA/FHA). GNMA and the other agencies would buy these mortgages from the issuing banks. This put cash back in the banks, so they could make more loans. Then, GNMA and the others actually collected on the mortgages. To fund this process, GNMA and the others issued bonds, which were backed by the payments coming from the mortgages, and these mortgages were all insured by the government, so it was pretty safe. These bonds were the first real mortgage backed securities. The issuing banks thus made their money issuing new loans and flipping them over to GNMA. And it's all funded by investors who are buying the MBS's because they want real estate exposure with a lot of safety. Fast forward 40 years. Banks don't have a lot of incentive to really verify all the info on a loan, because they don't really sit on it and bear the default risk. The borrower's don't have any incentive not to lie on the loan application, because they want to buy as much house as possible. Lots of other MBS's and credit default swaps, and CDOs are now floating around, as everyone figured out how to make money in every direction as often as they could. The credit risk ratings on MBSs are different than bonds, even though they kind of look the same, so a lot of people were fooled into thinking they were safer than they actually were. Sometimes companies just lied about the risk level. All of the major banks have multiple insurance contracts, CDS's, and interlocking arrangements built up upon this system. This basically isn't really a problem, as long as everyone has enough cash to pay out and keep the financial faucets flowing. Until... people who've borrowed too much on their mortgages start having trouble paying for them. Some of them got floating rate loans, and the rates go up. Their payments go up. They can't pay them. They start to default. A lot of the MBS's that have been issued aren't backed by government insured mortgages. Or even if they are, the thing is, the MBS payments aren't insured. Or you were in the wrong tranche, so the payments you're supposed to get on your MBS get axed. Maybe it defaults. No problem, you think, we bought an insurance product (CDS) on the MBS, so when it defaults, our counter party has to pay out. And that's important because you are on the other side of some other insurance like products, and you need to start paying your counterparties on those contracts. As long as the payments all happen, like they are promised to, it works. But, as it turns out, your insurer is also having cash flow problems, because a lot of their contracts are starting to pay out. They are having trouble meeting their obligations, due to everyone trying to collect at the same time. So they can't pay you, even though they definitely owe you payments. And now you can't pay out on your obligations. So you're gonna screw over the people you owe money. Welcome to contagion. Liquidity problems start to propagate across the market. People can't pay because people aren't paying them, and this causes a real shit show of defaults. That's why it's called a "credit crisis". When liquidity dried up, it didn't matter what you were supposed to have on paper. Your insurance products were crap, not because you were stupid, but because the person on the other side just couldn't live up to their end of the bargain, because someone on the other side of them didn't hold up their end, and round and round it went. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Please tell me if I have this right so far: You have mortgage backed bonds. These are bonds that are full of mortgages. If the homeowner's pay their mortgage, the holder of the bond makes money. These are *relatively* safe (at least in terms of collapsing the whole system), even when people do stupid shit like buy 4000 square foot houses when they have half-assed jobs. Then there are "CDOs", which are basically the same thing, except they have some riskier components, like auto loans, credit cards, etc. Then there are "synthetic CDOs", or "CDO squared's". What are these? In order to multiply the original mortgage bond investment 20-fold, don't you need people betting against the mortgage holders at some point? And, if they are right, where does the money come from? I need this explained like I'm 5 years old. Thanks. A CDO is a broader category. A MBS can be thought of as a type of CDO. A CDO can exist without actually being backed by the underlying asset, instead using derivative products bundled together. They end up essentially being a side bet on the underlying asset, in a sense. So, the money simply comes from a counter party that is willing to bet against you. These positions may not be "naked" in the sense that the people using the CDOs or derivative products may have certain exposures (like they've sold insurance against a product, and are trying to offset some of the risk associated with that) that they are trying to hedge. Or, they could simply be speculating. It gets complicated in a hurry. The market meltdown can boil down to this. The government had been subsidizing the housing market for a long, long time through federal lending programs. This helped people buy houses even though they couldn't normally have gotten loans via normal processes at banks. These mortgages had insurance on them, the government promised to pay the banks if the borrower's defaulted. These mortgages were fairly uniform debts, they shared a lot of common features, and they were all backed by insurance (VA/FHA). GNMA and the other agencies would buy these mortgages from the issuing banks. This put cash back in the banks, so they could make more loans. Then, GNMA and the others actually collected on the mortgages. To fund this process, GNMA and the others issued bonds, which were backed by the payments coming from the mortgages, and these mortgages were all insured by the government, so it was pretty safe. These bonds were the first real mortgage backed securities. The issuing banks thus made their money issuing new loans and flipping them over to GNMA. And it's all funded by investors who are buying the MBS's because they want real estate exposure with a lot of safety. Fast forward 40 years. Banks don't have a lot of incentive to really verify all the info on a loan, because they don't really sit on it and bear the default risk. The borrower's don't have any incentive not to lie on the loan application, because they want to buy as much house as possible. Lots of other MBS's and credit default swaps, and CDOs are now floating around, as everyone figured out how to make money in every direction as often as they could. The credit risk ratings on MBSs are different than bonds, even though they kind of look the same, so a lot of people were fooled into thinking they were safer than they actually were. Sometimes companies just lied about the risk level. All of the major banks have multiple insurance contracts, CDS's, and interlocking arrangements built up upon this system. This basically isn't really a problem, as long as everyone has enough cash to pay out and keep the financial faucets flowing. Until... people who've borrowed too much on their mortgages start having trouble paying for them. Some of them got floating rate loans, and the rates go up. Their payments go up. They can't pay them. They start to default. A lot of the MBS's that have been issued aren't backed by government insured mortgages. Or even if they are, the thing is, the MBS payments aren't insured. Or you were in the wrong tranche, so the payments you're supposed to get on your MBS get axed. Maybe it defaults. No problem, you think, we bought an insurance product (CDS) on the MBS, so when it defaults, our counter party has to pay out. And that's important because you are on the other side of some other insurance like products, and you need to start paying your counterparties on those contracts. As long as the payments all happen, like they are promised to, it works. But, as it turns out, your insurer is also having cash flow problems, because a lot of their contracts are starting to pay out. They are having trouble meeting their obligations, due to everyone trying to collect at the same time. So they can't pay you, even though they definitely owe you payments. And now you can't pay out on your obligations. So you're gonna screw over the people you owe money. Welcome to contagion. Liquidity problems start to propagate across the market. People can't pay because people aren't paying them, and this causes a real shit show of defaults. That's why it's called a "credit crisis". When liquidity dried up, it didn't matter what you were supposed to have on paper. Your insurance products were crap, not because you were stupid, but because the person on the other side just couldn't live up to their end of the bargain, because someone on the other side of them didn't hold up their end, and round and round it went. |
|
Quoted:
A fifth grader can debunk your theory. The housing market crashed in December of 2008. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th 2009. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, Obama and cohorts made banks issue loans to people with no credit who didn’t have a chance in hell of fulfilling their loans, saying it was racist to deny people based on their ability to pay the loan back. On top of that, you had banks issue loans with no money down, which had variable rates, low at the onset, and would spike higher as interest rates moved, ensuring they would not be able to pay the newer higher rates and would likewise default. On a basic level, these loans were packaged together and sold as an investment. Different packages had different amounts of risk, based on the credit ratings of the borrowers. They kept selling and leveraging these as assets, when they knew they were worthless. Eventually, one company saw that they were sitting in a house of cards, and their “assets” were about to implode since they were worthless. They dumped, and dumped hard, causing a stampede for the doors to get out as everyone else saw their balance sheet wasnt worth shit and the value of the packages tanked. More sellers than buyers... The housing market crashed in December of 2008. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th 2009. |
|
Major banks started bundling mortgages into securities. These proved popular - largely due to the fact that the mortgages selected conformed to Fannie/Freddie standards for good credit risks. So popular that the demand rose. To meet demand, those banks began bundling a range of mortgages into securities - some/an increasing number of marginal credit risk. The exact composition of any security bundle was essentially unknown. Speculation led to increased buying of these "mixed risk" securities, then buying and trading of them.
Problem is that a lot of people bought a lot more house than their credit would reasonably support. And those same risky people assumed that the value of the house would increase - at the time that the housing market was reaching historic highs. And to afford that house (which they couldn't really afford) they took out "stated income" loans ("liar loans"), "interest only loans", risky ARMs, financed 100-110% of the house value, falsified financial and tax records etc. Then they bought lots of new furniture to furnish the house. Throw in a new car. Leveraged past their ability to pay. Kind of like a "free beer Freshman kegger". On top of this, institutions like AIG offered insurance on these securities. But the mathematical risk profiles in the bank's/AIG's computers were written for normative risk - not the higher "mixed bundling" risk that became popular but was largely not understood because everyone was enjoying the profits. The key was to not be holding loans/bundles/securities when mortgage defaults began increasing and then the market turned. Turned sharply. The largest banks in the world (less Chase) were not sufficiently capitalized to handle the sharp turn in risk for the portfolios they were holding. AIG wasn't capitalized enough/failed to appraise the real risk when the defaults started to increase. Then the damn burst and there weren't enough lifeboats and it immediately threatened the Western economies and banks. Boom. |
|
We made a ton in MBS stocks. Got out when a real estate developer buddy of mine made a comment about starter homes with zero down on the golf course one day. Next day I started digging and decided to sell. THANK GOD.
|
|
Quoted:
The govt had very little to do with it. Mortgage brokers were chasing fees, the banks were chasing fees, the people buying the CDO's were chasing yield. Nonconforming and Subprime loans offered higher yields and fees. It was a shit show. The bankers got greedy and it blew up in their face. They did not learn a damn thing because the govt. bailed their ass out. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't the whole thing with shaky loans because the government started pressuring lenders to lend to people with shoddy credit with some promise of being recouped? |
|
Quoted:
-Bankers and politicians made a whole lot of stupid loans, to stupid people, for stupid reasons. -Loans defaulted for obvious reasons if you ever read a financial text book. -Instead of going to jail for fraud, corruption and the like. Banks got a bail out. And one of the greatest financial heists in history took place and no one cared. Or even understood what was happening. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Question for knowledge people because I don’t know Did Bush handle the crash the right way with the bailout! Should he have let it crash and correct itself? Possibly something in between? View Quote Get this, back in the day you were criticized by examiners for excess loan reserves. Why? .gov wasn’t able to tax money that went into the loan loss reserve. You couldn’t say, were saving for an unknown economic event, you had to try and justify why you had loan loss reserves. Love the .gov More people should have gone to jail |
|
Quoted:
Major banks started bundling mortgages into securities. These proved popular - largely due to the fact that the mortgages selected conformed to Fannie/Freddie standards for good credit risks. So popular that the demand rose. To meet demand, those banks began bundling a range of mortgages into securities - some/an increasing number of marginal credit risk. The exact composition of any security bundle was essentially unknown. Speculation led to increased buying of these "mixed risk" securities, then buying and trading of them. Problem is that a lot of people bought a lot more house than their credit would reasonably support. And those same risky people assumed that the value of the house would increase - at the time that the housing market was reaching historic highs. And to afford that house (which they couldn't really afford) they took out "stated income" loans ("liar loans"), "interest only loans", risky ARMs, financed 100-110% of the house value, falsified financial and tax records etc. Then they bought lots of new furniture to furnish the house. Throw in a new car. Leveraged past their ability to pay. Kind of like a "free beer Freshman kegger". On top of this, institutions like AIG offered insurance on these securities. But the mathematical risk profiles in the bank's/AIG's computers were written for normative risk - not the higher "mixed bundling" risk that became popular but was largely not understood because everyone was enjoying the profits. The key was to not be holding loans/bundles/securities when mortgage defaults began increasing and then the market turned. Turned sharply. The largest banks in the world (less Chase) were not sufficiently capitalized to handle the sharp turn in risk for the portfolios they were holding. AIG wasn't capitalized enough/failed to appraise the real risk when the defaults started to increase. Then the damn burst and there weren't enough lifeboats and it immediately threatened the Western economies and banks. Boom. View Quote Is hard to blame anyone in particular but it was a chain of events and everyone bears some of it. |
|
Quoted:
A fifth grader can debunk your theory. The housing market crashed in December of 2008. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th 2009. View Quote And get an education before insulting someone who knows more than you do, |
|
W/O reading the other replies:
Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which made banks give loans to higher risk customers. Didn't cause too many problems. Clinton expanded it, bigly. It increased the bad debt, basically sold as junk bonds. Housing got stupid expensive, bad debts got bigger, was no longer sustainable. Boom. Economy crashes. Law is still in effect. |
|
Subprime loans and non traditional loans such as adjustable interest loans that unqualified people used is what sank the real estate market in 08.
|
|
heheh.. my bro was structuring mortgage loans at the time at a black owned bank.. he was the token white guy in case they had a white client
He has some stories... |
|
Quoted:
A fifth grader can debunk your theory. The housing market crashed in December of 2008. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th 2009. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
A fifth grader can debunk your theory. The housing market crashed in December of 2008. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th 2009. Even a fifth grader could have used google before he made an ass of himself like you just did... I googled “Obama pressured banks subprime loans” like you could have, and Oh, gosh, what came up? Investors Business Daily... How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners! You have been OWNED Before the crisis, Obama pushed thousands of credit-poor blacks into homes they couldn't afford. As a civil-rights attorney, he sued banks to rubberstamp mortgages for urban residents.
Many are now in foreclosure. In fact, the lead client in one of his class-action suits has since lost her home and filed bankruptcy. First some background: Obama focused on "housing rights" when he worked as a lawyer-activist and community organizer in South Side Chicago. His mentor — the man who placed him in his first job there — was the father of the anti-redlining movement: John McKnight. He coined the term "redlining" to describe the mapping off of minority neighborhoods from home loans. McKnight wrote a letter for Obama that helped him get into Harvard. After he graduated, he worked for a Chicago civil-rights law firm that worked closely with McKnight's radical Gamaliel Foundation and National People's Action, as well as Acorn, to solicit lending-discrimination cases. At the time, NPA and Acorn were lobbying the Clinton administration to tighten enforcement of anti-redlining laws. They also dispatched bus loads of goons trained by Obama to the doorsteps of bankers to demand more home loans for minorities. Acorn even crashed the lobby of Citibank's headquarters in New York and accused it of discriminating against blacks. The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities. Also that year, Attorney General Janet Reno and her aide Eric Holder filed a mortgage discrimination case against a Washington-area bank that forced it to target minority neighborhoods for subprime loans. Reno and Holder also encouraged civil-rights lawyers like Obama to file local lending-bias cases against banks. The next year, Obama led a class-action suit against Citibank on behalf of several Chicago minorities who claimed they were rejected for home loans because of the color of their skin. It was one of 11 such suits filed against the financial giant in Chicago and New York in the 1990s. As first reported in Paul Sperry's "The Great American Bank Robbery," the plaintiffs' claim lacked merit. Factors other than race figured in the bank's decision to turn them down for loans. One of Obama's clients had "inadequate collateral" and "an incomplete application," while another had "delinquent credit obligations and other adverse credit history." Obama argued such facts miss the point: that Citibank's neutral underwriting criteria may have adversely impacted his clients as a class of people. He demanded it turn over loan files from the entire Chicago metro area to prove it regularly engaged in a pattern of discrimination. The court didn't award him the files. But Citibank eventually settled, despite the weak case. Under the 1998 settlement, Citibank vowed to pay the alleged victims $1.4 million and launch a program to boost home lending to poor blacks in the metro area. In the run-up to the crisis, Citibank underwrote thousands of shaky subprime mortgages to satisfy the court in Obama's case. Defaults were common. When home prices collapsed, most of the loans went bust. His lead African-American client, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who was denied a loan due to bad credit and low income, got her mortgage only to default on it years later. She got a foreclosure notice in 2008, according to The Daily Caller website, along with many of her Chicago neighbors. By putting them on the hook for loans they couldn't pay, Obama did them no favors. Blacks have been hit hardest by foreclosures. But what does Obama care? The Caller reports he pocketed at least $23,000 from the Citibank case. Today, he blames the devastating wealth drain in black communities on subprime mortgages. He says "greedy," "predatory" lenders tricked poor minorities into paying higher fees and interest rates. But Obama was for subprime loans before he was against them. "Subprime loans started off as a good idea," he said as those loans began to sour in 2007. |
|
Quoted:
We made a ton in MBS stocks. Got out when a real estate developer buddy of mine made a comment about starter homes with zero down on the golf course one day. Next day I started digging and decided to sell. THANK GOD. View Quote I know of more than a few people who were pretty well off prior that it bankrupted and a only a couple that became well off because of the crash. Most of the ones I know who lost everything were leveraged to the hilt, prior to the crash they were worth a chuck of money. If one only knew when to be flush with cash vs having it invested elsewhere. |
|
the banks gave everyone loans then the deatbeats stopped paying loans back. that simple. moral of story don't lend money to people that can't pay it back.
|
|
Quoted:
Obama worked the banks when he was a senator and before. Not as president. And I did not say as president. Obama and his cohorts, fellow democrats. You can read some newspapers about how he pressured the banks to issue loans to subprime lenders, And get an education before insulting someone who knows more than you do, View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
A fifth grader can debunk your theory. The housing market crashed in December of 2008. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th 2009. And get an education before insulting someone who knows more than you do, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/fingerprints-of-obama-on-subprime-foreclosure-crisis/ |
|
Quoted:
We made a ton in MBS stocks. Got out when a real estate developer buddy of mine made a comment about starter homes with zero down on the golf course one day. Next day I started digging and decided to sell. THANK GOD. View Quote By '05 into '06 I could see finished lots sitting for longer periods before home building started. Along with the fact no one verified my income or employment on my first ever mortgage, I started to see the writing on the wall. By mid-'06 I started to transition away from construction. But at the time I did not begin to understand just how bad the financial implosion was going to be. By spring of '07 it was like someone shut the spigot off. I had no idea what a derivative was aside from having to take Calc I for my BS. I survived but it sucked balls. We refinanced last year to cut time and rate, it was night and day from '04. They made me turn my head and cough. |
|
Quoted:
As much as I hate Obama, the seeds for this mess were sewn well before he had any power. View Quote So you can hate him for this as well. Do a google search and you will find loads of articles about his time as a lawyer doing this, and then as a senator. |
|
Quoted: Point of order: When this blew up, Barry Hussein Soetoro was a nobody with a big mouth who nobody outside of Chicago had ever heard of. This was a GWB/FBJC production. View Quote https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/fingerprints-of-obama-on-subprime-foreclosure-crisis/ |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Thanks Obunghole. View Quote |
|
View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
Add "Too Big To Fail". Its from the perspective of the US Treasury. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Margin Call is an excellent movie. The Big Short is also a great one. now consider how that would have gone if the president had been trump. and no im not upset my girl lost, i just recognize the trump takes no prisoners and the other side has been sharpening their knives for almost 4 years. we get into a sticky situation that requires both sides to work out a serious problem and it may not happen. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, if you have a couple hours, watch it. Good flick and pretty close to how it went down. And it even honestly showed how no one responsible was held accountable. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly, the movie explains it fairly well. And it even honestly showed how no one responsible was held accountable. The market has always and will always take the legal framework to it's extreme logical conclusion. If it's legal and possible to make subprime loans or sell exotic derivatives at a profit, then you can bet your ass that someone is going to do it. The 2008 crisis is 100% on our government for failing in their regulatory responsibilities. You can blame any single private or corporate entity you want for the crisis but had it not been them, it would have been someone else. |
|
|
Quoted:
Wasn't the whole thing with shaky loans because the government started pressuring lenders to lend to people with shoddy credit with some promise of being recouped? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
The people who have the power to hold the guilty to account were in and of themselves, the once who needed to be held accountable. The market has always and will always take the legal framework to it's extreme logical conclusion. If it's legal and possible to make subprime loans or sell exotic derivatives at a profit, then you can bet your ass that someone is going to do it. The 2008 crisis is 100% on our government for failing in their regulatory responsibilities. You can blame any single private or corporate entity you want for the crisis but had it not been them, it would have been someone else. View Quote |
|
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBG2k8PAy2I[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CukM4Eoi7Q[/youtube] [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvYvQeNeq3A[/youtube] |
|
Quoted:
LOL, it's been pointed out several times in this thread that this wasn't Obama's doing yet people continue to bark about it. Trained seals display more critical thinking skills than some folks it seems. View Quote Obama had a hand in pressuring banks and the govt. on giving loans to minorities. This was back when he was a Community Organizer. How do you not know this? Maybe you should do some research before questioning others abilities? Obama and the HL Crash |
|
Quoted:
Excellent explanation though you left out one detail. Due to the ease of borrowing, housing prices started to rise. The subprime buyers were only the catalyst. Once the prices started going up, everyone got in on the action. As perceived values increased, more people were motivated to sell and “trade up”. Additional people began to buy speculatively on investment properties by leveraging their current assets. Home equity loans were taken to buy “investment” vacation homes. More home equity loans were taken for home improvements to “increase the value” of the properties. Prices continued to go up and up. People were buying and selling across all income brackets until it reached a big ass bubble. Even joe middle class was getting greedy on the ride up at this point. Values peaked sales slowed down values dropped and everybody was so over leveraged that their assets were no longer valued anywhere near their debts. That’s when the cracks started to show in the damn. A free people saw the cracks, but when it broke, boom, it was quick ride to the bottom. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Please tell me if I have this right so far: You have mortgage backed bonds. These are bonds that are full of mortgages. If the homeowner's pay their mortgage, the holder of the bond makes money. These are *relatively* safe (at least in terms of collapsing the whole system), even when people do stupid shit like buy 4000 square foot houses when they have half-assed jobs. Then there are "CDOs", which are basically the same thing, except they have some riskier components, like auto loans, credit cards, etc. Then there are "synthetic CDOs", or "CDO squared's". What are these? In order to multiply the original mortgage bond investment 20-fold, don't you need people betting against the mortgage holders at some point? And, if they are right, where does the money come from? I need this explained like I'm 5 years old. Thanks. A CDO is a broader category. A MBS can be thought of as a type of CDO. A CDO can exist without actually being backed by the underlying asset, instead using derivative products bundled together. They end up essentially being a side bet on the underlying asset, in a sense. So, the money simply comes from a counter party that is willing to bet against you. These positions may not be "naked" in the sense that the people using the CDOs or derivative products may have certain exposures (like they've sold insurance against a product, and are trying to offset some of the risk associated with that) that they are trying to hedge. Or, they could simply be speculating. It gets complicated in a hurry. The market meltdown can boil down to this. The government had been subsidizing the housing market for a long, long time through federal lending programs. This helped people buy houses even though they couldn't normally have gotten loans via normal processes at banks. These mortgages had insurance on them, the government promised to pay the banks if the borrower's defaulted. These mortgages were fairly uniform debts, they shared a lot of common features, and they were all backed by insurance (VA/FHA). GNMA and the other agencies would buy these mortgages from the issuing banks. This put cash back in the banks, so they could make more loans. Then, GNMA and the others actually collected on the mortgages. To fund this process, GNMA and the others issued bonds, which were backed by the payments coming from the mortgages, and these mortgages were all insured by the government, so it was pretty safe. These bonds were the first real mortgage backed securities. The issuing banks thus made their money issuing new loans and flipping them over to GNMA. And it's all funded by investors who are buying the MBS's because they want real estate exposure with a lot of safety. Fast forward 40 years. Banks don't have a lot of incentive to really verify all the info on a loan, because they don't really sit on it and bear the default risk. The borrower's don't have any incentive not to lie on the loan application, because they want to buy as much house as possible. Lots of other MBS's and credit default swaps, and CDOs are now floating around, as everyone figured out how to make money in every direction as often as they could. The credit risk ratings on MBSs are different than bonds, even though they kind of look the same, so a lot of people were fooled into thinking they were safer than they actually were. Sometimes companies just lied about the risk level. All of the major banks have multiple insurance contracts, CDS's, and interlocking arrangements built up upon this system. This basically isn't really a problem, as long as everyone has enough cash to pay out and keep the financial faucets flowing. Until... people who've borrowed too much on their mortgages start having trouble paying for them. Some of them got floating rate loans, and the rates go up. Their payments go up. They can't pay them. They start to default. A lot of the MBS's that have been issued aren't backed by government insured mortgages. Or even if they are, the thing is, the MBS payments aren't insured. Or you were in the wrong tranche, so the payments you're supposed to get on your MBS get axed. Maybe it defaults. No problem, you think, we bought an insurance product (CDS) on the MBS, so when it defaults, our counter party has to pay out. And that's important because you are on the other side of some other insurance like products, and you need to start paying your counterparties on those contracts. As long as the payments all happen, like they are promised to, it works. But, as it turns out, your insurer is also having cash flow problems, because a lot of their contracts are starting to pay out. They are having trouble meeting their obligations, due to everyone trying to collect at the same time. So they can't pay you, even though they definitely owe you payments. And now you can't pay out on your obligations. So you're gonna screw over the people you owe money. Welcome to contagion. Liquidity problems start to propagate across the market. People can't pay because people aren't paying them, and this causes a real shit show of defaults. That's why it's called a "credit crisis". When liquidity dried up, it didn't matter what you were supposed to have on paper. Your insurance products were crap, not because you were stupid, but because the person on the other side just couldn't live up to their end of the bargain, because someone on the other side of them didn't hold up their end, and round and round it went. It was everybody. The public was fully participating in activity that directly led to the disaster. Tons of people who got loans they never should have gotten, that lied on their application, that just made moronic financial decisions.... Plenty of blame to go around. |
|
Quoted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBG2k8PAy2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CukM4Eoi7Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvYvQeNeq3A View Quote But as with most things, their breakdown was brutally honest and hilarious. |
|
Quoted:
LOL, it's been pointed out several times in this thread that this wasn't Obama's doing yet people continue to bark about it. Trained seals display more critical thinking skills than some folks it seems. View Quote |
|
The government started saying checking credit for mortgages was racist, and would buy shit mortgages from banks via Fannie and Freddy. Then they paid Wall Street banks to mix this crap debt in with AAA debt so sell it off to investors.
Massive moral hazard on all sides. Banks got paid for originating mortgages. Fannie and Freddie execs got rich by compensation based on hitting quotas of mortgages made largely to unqualified lenders. Wall Street banks got rich from fees securitizing stinky crap mortgages, camouflaging it with AAA debt, and selling it to investors around the world who thought they were buying safe American mortgage debt vetted by the American banking industry and ever-appreciating American real estate as collateral. Then the bad creditors the government said that it was racist to not lend to started defaulting and it all started collapsing. |
|
In terms of percentage of money involved it was really a California bubble. Everyone was told if for some reason you couldn't make the payments you could always sell the house for more then you payed for it. That doesn't work if the housing market isn't great. Plenty knew the growing prices had outgrown what a large percentage of the people making those payments could realistically afford. Creative loans were used to keep the pyramid scheme going for a few years. Then even more creative loans were invented so those who knew what was coming could quickly divest their investments. The creativity in the loans was for telling a story after the fact. They were obviously a fraud for anyone who bothered with simple math. Contrary to how the story is portrayed there is no mystery. There was no black swan event. This type of event just keeps repeating in history.
|
|
Quoted:
Technically it goes all the way back to Carter. Clinton is the one who really drove it into the ground though. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
LOL, it's been pointed out several times in this thread that this wasn't Obama's doing yet people continue to bark about it. Trained seals display more critical thinking skills than some folks it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Johnson_(Minnesota_politician) |
|
Quoted:
The government started saying checking credit for mortgages was racist, and would buy shit mortgages from banks via Fannie and Freddy. Then they paid Wall Street banks to mix this crap debt in with AAA debt so sell it off to investors. Massive moral hazard on all sides. Banks got paid for originating mortgages. Fannie and Freddie execs got rich by hitting business quotas. Wall Street banks got rich from fees securitizing stinky crap mortgages, camouflaging it with AAA debt, and selling it to investors around the world who thought they were buying American mortgage debt vetted by the American banking industry. Then the bad creditors the government said was racist to not lend to started defaulting and it all started collapsing. View Quote |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.