Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rover
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    Agree with Handy and sorry Slappy but despite your nice summary you missed the first and foremost point, which is the American people decided to live way beyond their means to an extent we've never seen before in this country, or at least not since the 20's. If you don't understand the terms of a loan, DON'T SIGN IT!!!!

    As Handy has correctly stated, scams have been around for ages, trying to get people to buy something using deceptive terms. People know this - they just didn't care. We, our friends and our neighbors caused this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    I'm not exonerating anyone but believe that while predatory lenders can all die in a fire the ones they lent to need to go sit in a corner and feel shame. And yeah many college campuses put a stop to that practice (one I remember well from my days on one long ago) because of the very nature of taking advantage of dummies. While you think I'm being too lenient on those that over-extended, I think you're being far too lenient toward the gross malpractice of the lenders by trying to even remotely compare the complicity of both sides.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    What narrative is that? Saying the people who took the loans bear some responsibility isnt exactly rewriting history. Everyone knows how this happened we all watched it happen in real time. Outside of people in the financial sector no one is exonerating the banks or the hedgers we are just saying if it seems too good to be true it probably is and the average rube forgot that. Everyone wanted to own a home whether they could afford it or not and never thought to wonder why banks would just be giving away mortgages with no money down and zero collateral.

    It isnt like this is new either...you ever been on a college campus the first week of a school? Every bank that offers a credit card is there signing kids up with low interest rates and free t-shirts! Whose fault it is if little Tommy Freshmen who doesnt have a job and still gets an allowance cant meet his burden?

    The vast majority of this falls on the banks...but to ignore the at least minimal fault of people is naive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    That's fine but the narrative behind what really happened needs to be amended.

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
    Christ, Google "Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission" for fun.
    If I'm on the computer looking for fun, this is pretty far down the list of topics I'll be Googling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    The following led to the housing crisis: large inflows of foreign funds during this time frame, the increase in loan incentives that encouraged borrowers (whom never should have bought in the first place) to believe they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms later on, automated underwriting practices which didn't adequately analyze the ability of borrowers to repay, the inability of buyers to make their mortgage payments (due primarily to adjustable-rate mortgages resetting, borrowers overextending to mortgages more than 4x their annual income, the jobs market, predatory lending, and speculation), overbuilding during the boom period, risky mortgage products, self-regulating by banks, high personal and corporate debt levels (Americans were saving less than ever before in hour history during this time period and household debt skyrocketed), financial products that distributed and perhaps concealed the risk of mortgage default, bad monetary and housing policies, international trade imbalances, and inappropriate government regulation.

    Fact is the lenders made loans that they knew borrowers could not afford. Christ, Google "Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission" for fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • unofan
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    I remember the crisis crystal clearly...and yes, the bailouts were necessary. Beyond that, you may well be right. I know more broadbased business and international trade sectors...but I'm not nearly well versed enough in the financial sector to have that answer.
    It's simply a question of national security in the truest sense. If your going under will cause the entire nation's (or even world's) economy to collapse, then mere regulation is insufficient, because regulation will never prevent shoddy leadership or other potential systematic yet legal flaws from developing (let alone ones that regulators should catch but don't for any number of reasons). The only solutions are to prevent you from getting to the point where your failure will collapse the entire economy, or to nationalize you so that you cannot fail.

    Privatizing gains but socializing losses should never be the solution because of the inherent moral hazards at work. It's one step better than total economic collapse, but that's it.

    Leave a comment:


  • 5mn_Major
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    The banks should have been bailed out and then broken up. If you're too big to fail, then you're too big to exist (or should be nationalized). The bailouts were not the problem, the problem was the lack of follow through afterwards to prevent it from happening again.
    I remember the crisis crystal clearly...and yes, the bailouts were necessary. Beyond that, you may well be right. I know more broadbased business and international trade sectors...but I'm not nearly well versed enough in the financial sector to have that answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • 5mn_Major
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    Originally posted by Rover View Post
    Unless Scooby is retiring don't sweat the fluctuations. Stocks traditionally return 10% over time. Buffett says we can now expect 7-8%. Either way that's not bad over 30 years. Using the Rule of 72 (72/expected return) you would double your money in 10 years if you achieve a 7% return.
    Not for the first half of 2016 they won't. Too much international and domestic (read president) uncertainty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    where Steve Carrell is talking to the stripper
    That was a great scene, and I can completely imagine it happening.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    The banks should have been bailed out and then broken up. If you're too big to fail, then you're too big to exist (or should be nationalized). The bailouts were not the problem, the problem was the lack of follow through afterwards to prevent it from happening again.
    Quoted...for...TRUTH!

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    Can't wait until you see The Big Short. They highlight what you're saying here with a mile wide highlighter.
    WellI saw the commercial where Steve Carrell is talking to the stripper

    Leave a comment:


  • unofan
    replied
    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    Just to follow up on my previous post, there are many out there who think that the US should not have bailed out the banks at all. Do we really feel that the US should bailed out the banks unconditionally?

    I have no problem with the US influencing the outcome of banks as potential and/or part owners for the gain of the US economy during a time of crisis when major sums of US taxpayer monies was involved.
    The banks should have been bailed out and then broken up. If you're too big to fail, then you're too big to exist (or should be nationalized). The bailouts were not the problem, the problem was the lack of follow through afterwards to prevent it from happening again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rover
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    Unless Scooby is retiring don't sweat the fluctuations. Stocks traditionally return 10% over time. Buffett says we can now expect 7-8%. Either way that's not bad over 30 years. Using the Rule of 72 (72/expected return) you would double your money in 10 years if you achieve a 7% return.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    Oh, I left it in. It's back now. I was able to buy a lot of shares when it was low. Dollar cost averaging.

    Even so, the totality is nowhere near what it should have been.
    Isn't it? I can't find a full historical map of the DJIA with a 7% trend line / projection, but I suspect if I did we'd probably be right about on beam after the wild swings both up and down.
    Last edited by Kepler; 01-05-2016, 01:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X