Rousseau SC's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/1056028/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1303911/comments?source=feed#comment-16960951 16960951 Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:21:20 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1294661/comments?source=feed#comment-16777771 16777771 Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:25:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1294661/comments?source=feed#comment-16737431 16737431 Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:01:41 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1294661/comments?source=feed#comment-16698211 16698211
You will note that there has been no discussion of hiring freezes, cutting federal employees compensation, either salary or benefits,or even any cuts other than those most likely to be scary to the American people just as releasing prisoners early or to be resented by the American people, such as ending White House tours, laying off firefighters and teachers and police. What a crock!!!

The goal is obviously to destroy the will of the people to restrain govt growth and to deprive us all of our personal rights. We have become a nation ruled by and serving the whims of a centralized govt.; not a nation whose govt represents and serves us. The Federal govt and its bureaucracy and oligarchy and its allies are prospering at the expense of the American people.]]> Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:51:31 -0400
You will note that there has been no discussion of hiring freezes, cutting federal employees compensation, either salary or benefits,or even any cuts other than those most likely to be scary to the American people just as releasing prisoners early or to be resented by the American people, such as ending White House tours, laying off firefighters and teachers and police. What a crock!!!

The goal is obviously to destroy the will of the people to restrain govt growth and to deprive us all of our personal rights. We have become a nation ruled by and serving the whims of a centralized govt.; not a nation whose govt represents and serves us. The Federal govt and its bureaucracy and oligarchy and its allies are prospering at the expense of the American people.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1294661/comments?source=feed#comment-16697621 16697621
That leads me to conclude that one can justify a presumption of rigging and the presumption of cover-up by the media. Not irrebuttable presumptions, but reasonable ones.]]> Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:34:10 -0400
That leads me to conclude that one can justify a presumption of rigging and the presumption of cover-up by the media. Not irrebuttable presumptions, but reasonable ones.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1294661/comments?source=feed#comment-16661381 16661381 Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:47:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1283011/comments?source=feed#comment-16552091 16552091
this argument has been shown to boil down to an argument that Wall Street needs to get and keep the most talented con men. The reason these cons were perpetrated was because they were well-rewarded with bonuses for conning people, rather than paid well for their work.]]> Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:30:04 -0400
this argument has been shown to boil down to an argument that Wall Street needs to get and keep the most talented con men. The reason these cons were perpetrated was because they were well-rewarded with bonuses for conning people, rather than paid well for their work.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1283011/comments?source=feed#comment-16507331 16507331 Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:48:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/894191?source=feed#comment-16444921 16444921 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:41:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/893961?source=feed#comment-16438571 16438571 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:07:56 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16356261 16356261 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:14:03 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16342571 16342571
John Locke authoried the first SC Copnstitution, some of which in moderrn English, survives in the present SC Constitution. Read Article 1, Sec 1, which he authored. Very illuminating. It states that all political power belongs to the people, who have the right to change their form of government at any time.]]> Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:50:28 -0400
John Locke authoried the first SC Copnstitution, some of which in moderrn English, survives in the present SC Constitution. Read Article 1, Sec 1, which he authored. Very illuminating. It states that all political power belongs to the people, who have the right to change their form of government at any time.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16341581 16341581
I do not understand the dynamics of our international banking system well enough to know all the consequences of rehypothecation of collateral. I will take your word for it.

I see an over-reaching sovereign as no better than over-reaching supersovereigns.

The issue I have with big govt goes beyond the economy and into civil liberties, including, without limitation, rights proptected under our Constitution to privacy, fair trial, freedom of speech and religion, even the right to bear arms (to defend one's life and liberty from enemies domestic or foreign, whether tyrants or burglars; not to hunt or target practice, which the framers would not have worried about and could not possibly be the concern of the 2nd Amendment).]]> Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:31:47 -0400
I do not understand the dynamics of our international banking system well enough to know all the consequences of rehypothecation of collateral. I will take your word for it.

I see an over-reaching sovereign as no better than over-reaching supersovereigns.

The issue I have with big govt goes beyond the economy and into civil liberties, including, without limitation, rights proptected under our Constitution to privacy, fair trial, freedom of speech and religion, even the right to bear arms (to defend one's life and liberty from enemies domestic or foreign, whether tyrants or burglars; not to hunt or target practice, which the framers would not have worried about and could not possibly be the concern of the 2nd Amendment).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16324391 16324391
I appreciate the time you spent with me to illuminate some issues.

At the risk of seeming inane, let me indulge a fantasy for a moment.

I suppose that the only way to decrease the unjustifiable power of the "supersovereigns" is to decrease the size and scope of their henchmen, the sovereign govts. In the USA, that would mean that we would respect the constitutional limits on the power of the centrailzed govt return to being a nation with a centralized govt. of enumerated powers, as per the 10th amendment and the original intent of the framers.

If such were to happen without additonal measures to curtail the power of the supersovereigns, that would merely cause them to use more flagrantly the resources of the muti-national and other large coropriatons and conglomerates to serve the purposes that govt would no longer serve or or would serve less effectively for them.

The opposition's (the public's) strategy would require that the corporation be "re-invented" to dismantle conglomerates, perhaps by forbidding corporations from owning interests in other corporations combined with forbidding their "controlling persons' or groups of controlling persons to achieve the same end.

Very complicated and very unlikely and subject to all calls for special exemptions, (e.g., the tax code) as the public could probably not be unified to to work for such ends without the assistance of mass media, itself controlled by conglomerates and solutions would be proposed by lobbyists and politicians.that the public could be conned into believing would work.]]> Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:16:20 -0400
I appreciate the time you spent with me to illuminate some issues.

At the risk of seeming inane, let me indulge a fantasy for a moment.

I suppose that the only way to decrease the unjustifiable power of the "supersovereigns" is to decrease the size and scope of their henchmen, the sovereign govts. In the USA, that would mean that we would respect the constitutional limits on the power of the centrailzed govt return to being a nation with a centralized govt. of enumerated powers, as per the 10th amendment and the original intent of the framers.

If such were to happen without additonal measures to curtail the power of the supersovereigns, that would merely cause them to use more flagrantly the resources of the muti-national and other large coropriatons and conglomerates to serve the purposes that govt would no longer serve or or would serve less effectively for them.

The opposition's (the public's) strategy would require that the corporation be "re-invented" to dismantle conglomerates, perhaps by forbidding corporations from owning interests in other corporations combined with forbidding their "controlling persons' or groups of controlling persons to achieve the same end.

Very complicated and very unlikely and subject to all calls for special exemptions, (e.g., the tax code) as the public could probably not be unified to to work for such ends without the assistance of mass media, itself controlled by conglomerates and solutions would be proposed by lobbyists and politicians.that the public could be conned into believing would work.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16271821 16271821
I like what I see in your new article. You obviously have more insight than I originally thought. Your reference to the TBTF banks threatening to end 30 year mortgages unless they were all guaranteed by Uncle Sam reminds me of a personal story, wherein I was advised by counsel for a certain state agency that the second mortgage industry threatened to refuse to make second mortgages to the citizens of SC if the State fo South Carolina enforced Sec. 37-10-102(a) of the SC Code so the agency backed down. This was not even a threat from TBTF banks, but included many of their finance company subsidiaries. I also had one manager of American General tell me they were big enough so that if people sued them for violation of that same law, they would have the law changed. A few years later, class actions were commenced against several lenders for violation of this statute and the lenders had the laws changed to prohibit class actions and limit damages.

Now, as to your questions. As to the chart, concerning the numbers of mortgage loans sold to the GSE's and the "shadow banks" First, I do not see where the chart distinguishes between solid loans and subprime loans. My suspicion is that the most desirable loans were kept in-house and the less desirable ones were sold to whoever would pay the most for them, including GSE's. Additionally, what do you call a "shadow bank"? When Deutsche Bank buys a loan and has BOA or Green Tree Loan Servicing service it, is Deutsche Bank a "shadow bank?

Finally, I see the source of the information was the Federal Reserve. You may as well comment that the banks determined what information to supply and what information to publish and how the numbers were calculated.

When ABN-Amro (read RBS, probably as much information RE: ABN has mysteriously disappeared) approved mortgage loan brokers working on commission and gave them status as "correspondent lenders", and gave them the software to review and approve loans in-house and gave them the software to print ABN-Amro packages naming the correspondent lender as the payee onj the note and as mortgagee and including mortgage assignments to ABN-Amro with closing instructions to ship the package directly to ABN-Amro, (with the loan being net-funded by ABN) prior to or simultaneously with disbursement of loan proceeds, is that correspondent lender a "shadow bank"?

As to your comparison of Japan and the USA, stating that the two are like each other in that neither will run out of money, I do not pretend to understand the dynamics of either economy well enough to comment on whether this is acurate or not. I can say that the cultures are incredibly different. It seems the Japanese citizenry are much more inclined to save than their American counterparts. It appears that the American citizenry is much more inclined to file for disability or for Sec 8 and/or for other govt assistance than the Japanese. I suspect that the Japanese aging population is accountable for most of the govt assistance in Japan, whereas, I am not so sure about how many Americans are actually in need of their entitlements. I am not as educated as you in these matters. What I know about economics has been learned primarily from my own observations and my own experiences, colored by the commentary of others that I have read and heard and not by formal training.

What I do know is that we, as a people, are losing or have lost our govt to big business and are losing our individual liberties to the twin incestuous alters of big govt and big busn., and, most particularly, big banking. Citzens United is proof of that fact.

If the American people knew and aprpeciated the extent to which the TBTF banks control their govt and control their lives and destroy their competiton and their opponents with deceit and rob the American people, things might change for the better. I don't pretend to know.]]> Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:33 -0400
I like what I see in your new article. You obviously have more insight than I originally thought. Your reference to the TBTF banks threatening to end 30 year mortgages unless they were all guaranteed by Uncle Sam reminds me of a personal story, wherein I was advised by counsel for a certain state agency that the second mortgage industry threatened to refuse to make second mortgages to the citizens of SC if the State fo South Carolina enforced Sec. 37-10-102(a) of the SC Code so the agency backed down. This was not even a threat from TBTF banks, but included many of their finance company subsidiaries. I also had one manager of American General tell me they were big enough so that if people sued them for violation of that same law, they would have the law changed. A few years later, class actions were commenced against several lenders for violation of this statute and the lenders had the laws changed to prohibit class actions and limit damages.

Now, as to your questions. As to the chart, concerning the numbers of mortgage loans sold to the GSE's and the "shadow banks" First, I do not see where the chart distinguishes between solid loans and subprime loans. My suspicion is that the most desirable loans were kept in-house and the less desirable ones were sold to whoever would pay the most for them, including GSE's. Additionally, what do you call a "shadow bank"? When Deutsche Bank buys a loan and has BOA or Green Tree Loan Servicing service it, is Deutsche Bank a "shadow bank?

Finally, I see the source of the information was the Federal Reserve. You may as well comment that the banks determined what information to supply and what information to publish and how the numbers were calculated.

When ABN-Amro (read RBS, probably as much information RE: ABN has mysteriously disappeared) approved mortgage loan brokers working on commission and gave them status as "correspondent lenders", and gave them the software to review and approve loans in-house and gave them the software to print ABN-Amro packages naming the correspondent lender as the payee onj the note and as mortgagee and including mortgage assignments to ABN-Amro with closing instructions to ship the package directly to ABN-Amro, (with the loan being net-funded by ABN) prior to or simultaneously with disbursement of loan proceeds, is that correspondent lender a "shadow bank"?

As to your comparison of Japan and the USA, stating that the two are like each other in that neither will run out of money, I do not pretend to understand the dynamics of either economy well enough to comment on whether this is acurate or not. I can say that the cultures are incredibly different. It seems the Japanese citizenry are much more inclined to save than their American counterparts. It appears that the American citizenry is much more inclined to file for disability or for Sec 8 and/or for other govt assistance than the Japanese. I suspect that the Japanese aging population is accountable for most of the govt assistance in Japan, whereas, I am not so sure about how many Americans are actually in need of their entitlements. I am not as educated as you in these matters. What I know about economics has been learned primarily from my own observations and my own experiences, colored by the commentary of others that I have read and heard and not by formal training.

What I do know is that we, as a people, are losing or have lost our govt to big business and are losing our individual liberties to the twin incestuous alters of big govt and big busn., and, most particularly, big banking. Citzens United is proof of that fact.

If the American people knew and aprpeciated the extent to which the TBTF banks control their govt and control their lives and destroy their competiton and their opponents with deceit and rob the American people, things might change for the better. I don't pretend to know.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16224361 16224361
I]]> Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:35:34 -0400
I]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16223651 16223651
I just checked in for my emails. I have an appointment in a few minutes, but I will look at those and respond later but it may be late tonight or even tomorrow as today is hectic. I will get to it. I promise. ]]> Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:23:00 -0400
I just checked in for my emails. I have an appointment in a few minutes, but I will look at those and respond later but it may be late tonight or even tomorrow as today is hectic. I will get to it. I promise. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16174961 16174961
I am not sure we really disagree so much. I am convinced that the GSE-TBTF alliance has had disastrous consequences and remains a potentially even more sertious threat in the future to our society as I am not convinced the GSE's or (some other mechanism for reaping ill-gotten gain) will eventually vanish into obscurity. I oppose the misguided alliance between big govt and big finance at every opportunity to speak out. I hope I don't irritate people with my agenda. ]]> Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:20:53 -0400
I am not sure we really disagree so much. I am convinced that the GSE-TBTF alliance has had disastrous consequences and remains a potentially even more sertious threat in the future to our society as I am not convinced the GSE's or (some other mechanism for reaping ill-gotten gain) will eventually vanish into obscurity. I oppose the misguided alliance between big govt and big finance at every opportunity to speak out. I hope I don't irritate people with my agenda. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16127281 16127281
I apologize for not looking at the chart. I was hurried in my response and I simply was replying to the idea that I was "brainwashed", which implies that I came to my ideas through sources other than my own experiences. I have personally closed a minimum of 10,000 residential mortgage loans over the last 30 yrs. and been a 50% partner in a firm (and responsible for supervising) which closed multiple times that number.

In short, I thought your comments intolerant of oppposing views and responded to that perception.

My opinions come from personal experience. I have dealt personally in regard to loan originations with homeowners, loan officers, (only occassionally and normally indirectly with) underwriters, mortgage loan brokers, appraisers, tile insurance counsel, etc. Adiititonally, I have represented mostly homeowners in foreclosure litigation.

My point is that my expereince includes dealing with many subprime loans made by subsidiaries and correspondent lenders and mortgage loan brokers for TBTF banks, and international corps such as Ford Motor Company (which owned Associates Finance, Ford Motor Credit, TranSouth, Kentucky Finance, etc.) and Continental Grain (Conti-Mortgage, where the crisis began when they could not sell % 500 Mil of "D" paper) or Household Finance, none of which sold to Freddie to my knowledge, but all of which made subprime mortgages their bread and butter. I have closed one or more loans for all of these mentioned.

I have closed loans for every company I mentioned, except perhaps Sherson-Lehman, but I did close loans sold to and/or securitzed by Lehman Bros.

My point simply was that my opinions are founded upon my own personal experiences, not data I read or an a commentaotr's slanted agenda. I am from South Carolina and I am not "brainwashed", at least on this subject.

After I get some work done today, I hope to have time to look at the chart and respond, but I wanted to make this point.

First hand knowledge counts and the broader the sampling of experience involved, the more reliable the results.

Charts often have a "point to prove"; i.e.; an agenda.]]> Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:28:44 -0400
I apologize for not looking at the chart. I was hurried in my response and I simply was replying to the idea that I was "brainwashed", which implies that I came to my ideas through sources other than my own experiences. I have personally closed a minimum of 10,000 residential mortgage loans over the last 30 yrs. and been a 50% partner in a firm (and responsible for supervising) which closed multiple times that number.

In short, I thought your comments intolerant of oppposing views and responded to that perception.

My opinions come from personal experience. I have dealt personally in regard to loan originations with homeowners, loan officers, (only occassionally and normally indirectly with) underwriters, mortgage loan brokers, appraisers, tile insurance counsel, etc. Adiititonally, I have represented mostly homeowners in foreclosure litigation.

My point is that my expereince includes dealing with many subprime loans made by subsidiaries and correspondent lenders and mortgage loan brokers for TBTF banks, and international corps such as Ford Motor Company (which owned Associates Finance, Ford Motor Credit, TranSouth, Kentucky Finance, etc.) and Continental Grain (Conti-Mortgage, where the crisis began when they could not sell % 500 Mil of "D" paper) or Household Finance, none of which sold to Freddie to my knowledge, but all of which made subprime mortgages their bread and butter. I have closed one or more loans for all of these mentioned.

I have closed loans for every company I mentioned, except perhaps Sherson-Lehman, but I did close loans sold to and/or securitzed by Lehman Bros.

My point simply was that my opinions are founded upon my own personal experiences, not data I read or an a commentaotr's slanted agenda. I am from South Carolina and I am not "brainwashed", at least on this subject.

After I get some work done today, I hope to have time to look at the chart and respond, but I wanted to make this point.

First hand knowledge counts and the broader the sampling of experience involved, the more reliable the results.

Charts often have a "point to prove"; i.e.; an agenda.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16093551 16093551
1 -Cantor is not from SC.

2 - "You SC guys"? "Brainwashed"? Such regionalistic stereotypes are not appropirate, especially in this conversation. Also, you apparently did read and comprehend well. I speak from personal experience; not from exposure to propaganda..]]> Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:50:59 -0400
1 -Cantor is not from SC.

2 - "You SC guys"? "Brainwashed"? Such regionalistic stereotypes are not appropirate, especially in this conversation. Also, you apparently did read and comprehend well. I speak from personal experience; not from exposure to propaganda..]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16070571 16070571
Maybe not the beginning. We must remember the mandate of the GSE's was to promote home-ownership and that they took advantage of that to the point that the CEO's of Fannie and Freddie were paid quite well to resign.

"Most subprime and all toxic and jumbo loans were made by shadow banks"?

No sir, Countrywide, First Union Home Equity, BOA and Wells Fargo , individually and through subsidiaries, all made huge numbers of these.

(I will not address the subprime market that did not sell to the GSE's like American General, Fleet Fiinance, Ford Motor Credit, TranSouth, Kentucky Finance, Commercial Credit, CitFinancial, ad nauseum, as they made more money on the outrageous rates on poor credit customers and churning delinquent customers.)

If I recall correctly, Sherson-Lehman did not make these loans to my knowledge directly in SC, but continued to approve some toxic loans after the others left the realm. They did not do so ignorantly, but probably over-estimated the willingness of the GSE's to continue to buy them after the secondary market crumbled. Just to specualte, maybe that's why they did not get bailed out.

These lenders and J P Morgage Chase, also set up mortgage loan brokers who worked on comiission (known as mortgage loan borker fees and yield spread premiums) as correspondent lenders. A correspondent lender was able to approve the loan itself, make the documents in its own name, sell it to the big bank and never fund a dime. The loans were funded by the "purchasing" bank. The correspondent lender was simply an originator and a front for the purchasing bank. An assignment ot the mortgage to the purchasing bank was filed immediately on the courthouse records and the homeowner never made any payments to the correspondent lender. Then the bank would sell it, oftern to a GSE for a profit. If they thought the borrower would actually stay current awhile, they could "season" it and get a better price for it.

Remember the press about the $ 50mil home of FNMA's former CEO? Govt and taxpayer (and TBTF fraud) subsidized just as the outrageous compensation to Freddie's management was so subsidized. It could not have happened without the GSE's open invitation to fraud.

Perhaps you would agree with me if you went to the FNMA website and looked up the underwriting guidelines for a year in the early 2000's, say 2002, and read them, especially if you compared them to lender undewriting guidelines. (Freddie simply adopted the Fannie guidelines, rather than drafting their own). The guidelines essentially say, easily reading between the lines, that if you deem this a good loan, we don't have independent standards, we will buy it from you.

I had one client, a mortgage broker, whose loan officers worked on commission, the loan officer normally making 3-5% commission for each loan closed, where they had two Freddie Mac underwriters in their office, eating lunch regularly with them, etc.
They knew how to get the loan sold to Freddie and were coached on what they needed to do.

Mortgage loan brokers who did not have "in-house" coaching had "broker liasons" employed by the big lenders assigned to help them when they had problems getting loans approved.

(Lenders created what the media called "plausible deniability" when the media spoke of the Iran-Contra scandal).

The lendrs were not stupid. They knew what was going on and they created a system that encouraged loan fraud becuase they profited from loan fraud.]]> Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:27:16 -0500
Maybe not the beginning. We must remember the mandate of the GSE's was to promote home-ownership and that they took advantage of that to the point that the CEO's of Fannie and Freddie were paid quite well to resign.

"Most subprime and all toxic and jumbo loans were made by shadow banks"?

No sir, Countrywide, First Union Home Equity, BOA and Wells Fargo , individually and through subsidiaries, all made huge numbers of these.

(I will not address the subprime market that did not sell to the GSE's like American General, Fleet Fiinance, Ford Motor Credit, TranSouth, Kentucky Finance, Commercial Credit, CitFinancial, ad nauseum, as they made more money on the outrageous rates on poor credit customers and churning delinquent customers.)

If I recall correctly, Sherson-Lehman did not make these loans to my knowledge directly in SC, but continued to approve some toxic loans after the others left the realm. They did not do so ignorantly, but probably over-estimated the willingness of the GSE's to continue to buy them after the secondary market crumbled. Just to specualte, maybe that's why they did not get bailed out.

These lenders and J P Morgage Chase, also set up mortgage loan brokers who worked on comiission (known as mortgage loan borker fees and yield spread premiums) as correspondent lenders. A correspondent lender was able to approve the loan itself, make the documents in its own name, sell it to the big bank and never fund a dime. The loans were funded by the "purchasing" bank. The correspondent lender was simply an originator and a front for the purchasing bank. An assignment ot the mortgage to the purchasing bank was filed immediately on the courthouse records and the homeowner never made any payments to the correspondent lender. Then the bank would sell it, oftern to a GSE for a profit. If they thought the borrower would actually stay current awhile, they could "season" it and get a better price for it.

Remember the press about the $ 50mil home of FNMA's former CEO? Govt and taxpayer (and TBTF fraud) subsidized just as the outrageous compensation to Freddie's management was so subsidized. It could not have happened without the GSE's open invitation to fraud.

Perhaps you would agree with me if you went to the FNMA website and looked up the underwriting guidelines for a year in the early 2000's, say 2002, and read them, especially if you compared them to lender undewriting guidelines. (Freddie simply adopted the Fannie guidelines, rather than drafting their own). The guidelines essentially say, easily reading between the lines, that if you deem this a good loan, we don't have independent standards, we will buy it from you.

I had one client, a mortgage broker, whose loan officers worked on commission, the loan officer normally making 3-5% commission for each loan closed, where they had two Freddie Mac underwriters in their office, eating lunch regularly with them, etc.
They knew how to get the loan sold to Freddie and were coached on what they needed to do.

Mortgage loan brokers who did not have "in-house" coaching had "broker liasons" employed by the big lenders assigned to help them when they had problems getting loans approved.

(Lenders created what the media called "plausible deniability" when the media spoke of the Iran-Contra scandal).

The lendrs were not stupid. They knew what was going on and they created a system that encouraged loan fraud becuase they profited from loan fraud.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256121/comments?source=feed#comment-16037111 16037111
I differ.

As a closing attorney, I made a lot of money closing loans which should not have been made. I rationalized that at least I was closing the loans and would tell the client the truth, unlike much of my competition who considered the lenders as their clients.

I have seen many loans that sould not have been approved, but desperate borrowers take desperate actions. I remember one refinance for an elderly woman whose loan application signed at closing showed her only income was a SS check under $ 700/mo and the P&I on the loan was @ $ 350/mo. If you figure utitlites, homeowners insurance, and maintenace, she would not be able to pay the mortgage and eat or buy medications, etc. without help from her family. I had to respect my clients' decisions, but I did not have to feel good about it. The underwriters who approved such loans should be incarcerated if you ask me and the GSE's should be similarly punished because they were the reason those loans were approved.

The beginning, middle and end of the previous housing bubble was the TBTF banks' alliance with the GSE's wherein and whereby the GSE's and the TBTF banks would "earn" undeserved profits by making loans to anyone who could breathe, based upon inflated property values, phony loan applications, almost non-existent loan approval standards, etc., and then sell them to the GSE's who would buy anything from them.

I would be curious to know how many loan packages were proffered to the GSE's, especially Freddie, and actually rejected. Who publishes that info?]]> Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:02:19 -0500
I differ.

As a closing attorney, I made a lot of money closing loans which should not have been made. I rationalized that at least I was closing the loans and would tell the client the truth, unlike much of my competition who considered the lenders as their clients.

I have seen many loans that sould not have been approved, but desperate borrowers take desperate actions. I remember one refinance for an elderly woman whose loan application signed at closing showed her only income was a SS check under $ 700/mo and the P&I on the loan was @ $ 350/mo. If you figure utitlites, homeowners insurance, and maintenace, she would not be able to pay the mortgage and eat or buy medications, etc. without help from her family. I had to respect my clients' decisions, but I did not have to feel good about it. The underwriters who approved such loans should be incarcerated if you ask me and the GSE's should be similarly punished because they were the reason those loans were approved.

The beginning, middle and end of the previous housing bubble was the TBTF banks' alliance with the GSE's wherein and whereby the GSE's and the TBTF banks would "earn" undeserved profits by making loans to anyone who could breathe, based upon inflated property values, phony loan applications, almost non-existent loan approval standards, etc., and then sell them to the GSE's who would buy anything from them.

I would be curious to know how many loan packages were proffered to the GSE's, especially Freddie, and actually rejected. Who publishes that info?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/875191?source=feed#comment-15996211 15996211 Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:20:23 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/852631?source=feed#comment-15568881 15568881 Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:40:33 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/852631?source=feed#comment-15538971 15538971 Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:07:11 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/847681?source=feed#comment-15471921 15471921
Evidence that the economy is in worse shape now than in 2007 If you talk about the economy of the citizens, rather than the publically-traded corporations, how could it be disputed?

Now is worse because people are suffering and resources to alleviate sufferring have diminished.

They are suffering. Workers are paid less. More are unemployed. More are underemployed. More are on govt assistance. More have given up hope.

The govt has fewer resources to assist. Govt is less worthy of credit.
Many state govts are in horrible shape financially. Uncle Sam is in horrible shape with its massive debt and its incredibly unmanageable unfunded liabilities and an aging population.]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:45:32 -0500
Evidence that the economy is in worse shape now than in 2007 If you talk about the economy of the citizens, rather than the publically-traded corporations, how could it be disputed?

Now is worse because people are suffering and resources to alleviate sufferring have diminished.

They are suffering. Workers are paid less. More are unemployed. More are underemployed. More are on govt assistance. More have given up hope.

The govt has fewer resources to assist. Govt is less worthy of credit.
Many state govts are in horrible shape financially. Uncle Sam is in horrible shape with its massive debt and its incredibly unmanageable unfunded liabilities and an aging population.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/847681?source=feed#comment-15452731 15452731 Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:00:51 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1178631/comments?source=feed#comment-15440231 15440231
Whether the oligarchs are benevolent despots or tyrannical masters, the point is that people must be vigilant to insure that a govt does not violate the testrictions upon its power contained in its written agreement with those whom it governs. Despotism is still dangerous and wrong, even if it is, at least temporarily, benevolent.
.]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:12:32 -0500
Whether the oligarchs are benevolent despots or tyrannical masters, the point is that people must be vigilant to insure that a govt does not violate the testrictions upon its power contained in its written agreement with those whom it governs. Despotism is still dangerous and wrong, even if it is, at least temporarily, benevolent.
.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1211541/comments?source=feed#comment-15404911 15404911
cheap labor;

increased profit margins;

lessened wage inflation and even wage deflation;

lower CPI, which goes to public perception of "having inflation under control";

higher stock prices which also mislead people into believing the economy is "healthy" and the "smart money" is optimistic about the economy;

more dependence on Uncle Sam and on the TBTF banks due to the worsening economic situation of the average citizen and, therefore, more power in the hands of Uncle Sam and the TBTF banks.

Unemployment and underemployment work to the benefit of those in power. that is why the Fed put a floor on unemployment. They serve their masters, who do not include the American people.]]> Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:11:46 -0500
cheap labor;

increased profit margins;

lessened wage inflation and even wage deflation;

lower CPI, which goes to public perception of "having inflation under control";

higher stock prices which also mislead people into believing the economy is "healthy" and the "smart money" is optimistic about the economy;

more dependence on Uncle Sam and on the TBTF banks due to the worsening economic situation of the average citizen and, therefore, more power in the hands of Uncle Sam and the TBTF banks.

Unemployment and underemployment work to the benefit of those in power. that is why the Fed put a floor on unemployment. They serve their masters, who do not include the American people.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1178631/comments?source=feed#comment-15404161 15404161
You started your post well. I was ready to hit the like icon until I read the remainder of your post.

I agree the banks should not have been bailed out. If you took the $ 786 Billion (786 thousand million) that was the initial stimulus money allegedly going to help solve the mortgage delinquency problem, you likely could have distributed @ $ 250k or some other outrageous amount of money toward the mortgage payments of each family that was 60 days delinquent (or evenly distributed the cash toward payments for all homeowners) and paid off most of those mortgages. That would have been incredibly inequitable, but far more effective to help both the banks and the troubled borrowers. Maybe it would have less less inequitable in the long run than rewarding/bailing out the wrong-doers who created the crisis.

I know the official line is that the banks have largely paid the money back. I would suggest they have not. The Fed has subsidized what the banks have paid back by giving the TBTF banks interest-free money. Essentially, taxpayers have been repaying these debts.

The problem is that you continued to advance more govt involvement in the economic life of the citizens and in the general economy. That is what is wrong with those who are truly supporters of the status quo pwer base of govt; you want to increase govt involvement (control) and thereby decrease freedom.

Govt is a necessary evil.

To be governed is to surrender control of those endeavors that are subject to governmental authority, voluntarily or involuntarily, to another. It is not a good idea to give it complete control over the lives of people who would rather have a government by consent of the governed, which, always requires limits on governmental power to mean anything.]]> Sat, 23 Feb 2013 05:54:07 -0500
You started your post well. I was ready to hit the like icon until I read the remainder of your post.

I agree the banks should not have been bailed out. If you took the $ 786 Billion (786 thousand million) that was the initial stimulus money allegedly going to help solve the mortgage delinquency problem, you likely could have distributed @ $ 250k or some other outrageous amount of money toward the mortgage payments of each family that was 60 days delinquent (or evenly distributed the cash toward payments for all homeowners) and paid off most of those mortgages. That would have been incredibly inequitable, but far more effective to help both the banks and the troubled borrowers. Maybe it would have less less inequitable in the long run than rewarding/bailing out the wrong-doers who created the crisis.

I know the official line is that the banks have largely paid the money back. I would suggest they have not. The Fed has subsidized what the banks have paid back by giving the TBTF banks interest-free money. Essentially, taxpayers have been repaying these debts.

The problem is that you continued to advance more govt involvement in the economic life of the citizens and in the general economy. That is what is wrong with those who are truly supporters of the status quo pwer base of govt; you want to increase govt involvement (control) and thereby decrease freedom.

Govt is a necessary evil.

To be governed is to surrender control of those endeavors that are subject to governmental authority, voluntarily or involuntarily, to another. It is not a good idea to give it complete control over the lives of people who would rather have a government by consent of the governed, which, always requires limits on governmental power to mean anything.]]>