Insights from the Anti-Krugman

[quaddriver]

If the govt sets a requirement that a percentage of mortgages to be non-conforming, that is a forcing.

42% in 96.
50 in 2000
52 in 2005.

that means, in plain english, that 50% of the mortgages purchased in 2000 had to be non-conforming. sub prime. risky. vapor.

I submit that anytime any business gets into a position where 50% of its assets are funny money, that business is in trouble. they did that for a DECADE as the post shows above. by the collapse, mae/mac owned HALF of the mortgages in the USA. Given the prices of homes and volumes of the preceding 12 years, near close to half of the portfolio was funny money. and the bailout (which covered the gap of course, not the origination) bears this out.

[Scooter]

Government: Hey banks, make loans more available.

Banks: Hmm, the more loans we make, the more money we get. Loans for everybody!

Quaddriver: But the government forced the banks to give loans to any Joe Schmoe off the street!

They are basing their argument on an attempt to equate a mandate to provide more mortgage financing to low and moderate income borrowersm, to the decisions by banks to provide financing to people with bad credit or who were purchasing homes they could not really afford. Obviously they are not the same thing at all, and a mandate to provide financing to low and moderate income borrowers has nothing to do with decisions by banks to extend loans to people with bad credit.

[rubato]

Seeing morons like Quad who don't know what "non-conforming" means, quack about it like rabid ducks is most illuminating.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conforming_loan

How stupid are these people?



yrs,
rubato

[quaddriver]

Government: Hey banks, make loans more available.

Banks: Hmm, the more loans we make, the more money we get. Loans for everybody!

Quaddriver: But the government forced the banks to give loans to any Joe Schmoe off the street!

They are basing their argument on an attempt to equate a mandate to provide more mortgage financing to low and moderate income borrowersm, to the decisions by banks to provide financing to people with bad credit or who were purchasing homes they could not really afford. Obviously they are not the same thing at all, and a mandate to provide financing to low and moderate income borrowers has nothing to do with decisions by banks to extend loans to people with bad credit.

no, "they" are basing their argument on the explicit directives of HUD. Not what you wished was stated.

Mandating a percentage of loans be made to holders with incomes under the guidelines, is not only a directive, it was a directive ordering the entity (mae or mac) to engage in subprime lending. the 'guidelines' as they were, were not put in place because someone got bored one day. they were put in place to prevent programmed defaults. they were ignored, the defaults occured. Not exactly rocket science. sorry, but your precious democrats fucked up.

this stuff is not secret yanno. It only took me a few milliseconds to look up posts that disproved your argument. you could have saved me the trouble by doing the same.

[quaddriver]

Seeing morons like Quad who don't know what "non-conforming" means, quack about it like rabid ducks is most illuminating.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conforming_loan

How stupid are these people?



yrs,
rubato

Apparently, not very. You didnt read the linked material did you? Didnt think so.

You have never obtained a mortgage in the USA EITHER did you?

you posted a table of the MAXIMUM limits for a conforming loan.

that does not mean, as you have implied, that ALL Mae or Mac loans must be at the maximum.

you read this: (or didnt as the evidence indicates)

In general, any loan which does not meet guidelines is a non-conforming loan. A loan which does not meet guidelines specifically because the loan amount exceeds the guideline limits is known as a jumbo loan

and concluded (or pulled out of your ass) the idea that 'the people who defaulted did not have these giant loans'. you are right, they most likely did not have JUMBO loans (last two words of the quoted statement from the link you didnt read)

you probably should have read this part:

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) set the criteria on what constitutes a conforming loan limit that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy. Criteria include debt-to-income ratio limits and documentation requirements.

which coincidently corresponds to the posts I made above. going from a proper D/R and a "VIVA" documentation stream, to ignoring income limits and a "NINA" stream was and is the problem.

to resummarize: buyers were allowed to have a much higher D/R (debt ratio in parlance) and no income/asset documentation. Aka nonconforming as per your link, and in violation of the GSE charter.

of course what would I know, I only have how many decades marriage to a mortgage broker/underwriter with how many decades of experience? surely the farm laborer turned chemist knows the process far more....

[Grim Reaper]

Mandating a percentage of loans be made to holders with incomes under the guidelines, is not only a directive, it was a directive ordering the entity (mae or mac) to engage in subprime lending. the 'guidelines' as they were, were not put in place because someone got bored one day. they were put in place to prevent programmed defaults. they were ignored, the defaults occured. Not exactly rocket science. sorry, but your precious democrats fucked up.

Mandating a percentage is still not the same thing as mandating a specific number. The banks are still at fault for taking the guidelines and sprinting off with them.

[Andrew D]

Andrew, I think your illness has attacked your brain. You have forgotten the distinction between fact and opinion.

No, dgs49, I have not.

But you have evidently forgotten that necessary inferences from observable data are facts.

You take your body temperature. The data that you have before you are that the thermometer just spent a few minutes under your tongue and that the thermometer now reads 106 degrees (F). The resulting fact is that your body temperature is 106 degrees (F).

It is possible, of course, that the thermometer is malfunctioning.

But you take your body temperature again with a different thermometer. And then again with yet a different thermometer. And so on . . .

And they all read 106 degrees (F).

Eventually, you conclude that the likelihood that all of the thermometers are wrong is effectively zero. So you conclude that your body temperature is, in fact, 106 degrees (F).

That conclusion is a fact.

Or maybe there is no thermometer at all. Maybe you have just been hallucinating the supposed existence of the thermometer.

Or maybe there is no you to do the hallucinating. Maybe not only does the thermometer not exist, but you don't exist either.

That is a philosophically interesting point of view.

And if you are so attracted to it that you choose to dismiss the evidence that one thermometer after another has measured your body temperature at 106 degrees (F), then I hope that your loved ones discover you in time to get you medical attention. Or at least in time to get you a decent burial before the household pets and neighborhood scavengers render you unfit for an open-casket funeral.

You cannot see electricity. But you can feel the shock when you touch an exposed connection. And your CD player produces music. And your lights come on when you flick the right switches.

You cannot see electricity. But its existence is a fact -- a fact upon whose existence you choose to depend on. Many times a day. So often that you have long since stopped bothering even to think about it. It is a fact.

(That is no diss. I also assume that my lights will come on, that water will flow from my taps, etc.)

The facts -- or, if you like, the things which I have claimed to be facts -- explain the observable data.

If you think that some other set of facts -- or claimed facts -- explains the observable data, please feel free to come up with it.

I'll be waiting . . . .

[dgs49]

To quote Andrew:

Fact: The leaders of the Republican party got us into this mess.

Fact: The leaders of the Republican party got us into this mess on purpose.

Fact: The leaders of the Republican party do not want an economic recovery, at least not until after November of 2012.

Fact: The only thing that the leaders of the Republican party care about is getting one of their own into the White House, and if millions of Americans must be impoverished to achieve that result, that gived the leaders of the Republican party not even the slightest pause.

Fact: Voting Republican is voting against America, even though most people duped into voting Republican -- which is to say, 95% of the people who vote Republican -- intend no such thing.

This thread is FILLED with evidence that many Democrats in Congress as well as the White House were directly responsible for creating the situation that fostered the real estate bubble that inevitably burst and precipitated the current recession. One could argue that they were not entirely responsible, and obviously there is evidence in that direction as well. But to state as a FACT, that the "Republican party" (a political organization with no legal power whatsoever) "got us into this mess on purpose," is not only not a fact, it is a rather vacuous, unsupported, sophomoric assertion. Certainly not one that could be expected from a licensed attorney who in past years showed indications that he was capable of rational thought.

The other assertions presented as "fact," are equally vacuous, unsupported, and obviously based on emotion and not rational thought.

The current President lied his way into office and has proven himself to be even more partisan (not to mention incompetent) than any of his recent predecessors, both Republican and Democrat. It is not only "the Republican Party" that is frantically working to end this disaster of a presidency, but just about everyone who sees what's going on and what he's trying to accomplish.

FACT: Andrew's brain is addled.

[Grim Reaper]

The other assertions presented as "fact," are equally vacuous, unsupported, and obviously based on emotion and not rational thought.

But your vacuous, unsupported, and obviously based on emotion and not rational thought posts are just fine and dandy. Hypocrite.

The current President lied his way into office and has proven himself to be even more partisan (not to mention incompetent) than any of his recent predecessors, both Republican and Democrat. It is not only "the Republican Party" that is frantically working to end this disaster of a presidency, but just about everyone who sees what's going on and what he's trying to accomplish.

It's cute how you call someone else addled right after you spewed this amazing load of nonsense.

[quaddriver]

Mandating a percentage is still not the same thing as mandating a specific number.

you are right, its far worse.

The banks are still at fault for taking the guidelines and sprinting off with them

Again true, but I submit few banks would have done this had not Mae/Mac essentially created the 100% guaranteed MBS. If we recall from the data, regardless of origination and details ofthe origination (which were shitty enuf), at the time ofthe collapse Mae/Mac held 50% of the mortgages in the US. that is not an insignificant number.

[Gob]

[quaddriver]

Interesting you mentioned CW. I detailed CWs involvement, including a scandal around late summer 2008.

Can you recall what that was?

[Gob]

Yes Quaddy, I always memorise your every uttering as they are so full of Wildean wit, erudition, and supreme knowledge....

Sorry had to stop, laughing too much...

[Andrew D]

But to state as a FACT, that the "Republican party" (a political organization with no legal power whatsoever) "got us into this mess on purpose," is not only not a fact . . . .

How did you manage to forget what you just quoted me as saying:

The leaders of the Republican party ....

The leaders of the Republican party have a great deal of legal power.

You may have noticed that one of them is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Are you seriously suggesting that the Speaker of the House has no legal power?

That the Majority Leader of the House has no legal power?

That the Minority Leader of the Senate has no legal power?

Are you ever serious about anything?

The current President lied his way into office and has proven himself to be even more partisan (not to mention incompetent) than any of his recent predecessors, both Republican and Democrat.

Utter twaddle.

The principal reason that Obama's policy have not done as much good as all patriotic Americans wish they had -- whatever one may think of the merits of various policies, we should all be able to agree that we would be better off if those policies had worked -- is that the leaders of the Republican party have consistently sabotaged them.

Speaking of incompetence, you seem to have forgot George W. Bush, whose eight years occupying the Oval Office managed to make the Carter presidency look like a smashing success.

The facts -- or, if you like, the things which I have claimed to be facts -- explain the observable data.

If you think that some other set of facts -- or claimed facts -- explains the observable data, please feel free to come up with it.

I'll be waiting . . . .

And I am still waiting. You appear to have great fun spewing, but when it comes to addressing issues, you never seem to be there.

FACT: Andrew's brain is addled.

And yet Andrew has never done anything even one one-billionth as stupid as voting for George W. Bush a second time -- the intellectually puniest, morally filthiest vote it has been possible for any American to cast for a major-party presidential candidate in well over a century.

Go figure.

[dgs49]

Andrew, I'm not the one who is preceding his opinions on this board with "FACT:".

And you are apparently forgetting who Bush43's opponent was in the 2004 election.

Early-onset dementia?

[dgs49]

And another thing, if Bush43 was sooooooo bad, why is Barry basically doing the same thing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, Gitmo,... The list goes on and on.

Is there something about the water in the WH?

[rubato]

And another thing, if Bush43 was sooooooo bad, why is Barry basically doing the same thing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, Gitmo,... The list goes on and on.

Is there something about the water in the WH?

Barack Obama has not gone to war in Iraq, he inherited a disaster and has been unwinding it.

He did not go to war in Afghanistan. He inherited this war as well and while I believe the attack on Afghanistan was justified (as did the rest of the world) he is getting us out, not in.

He inherited the mistakes of Gitmo and has found it more difficult to close than it was to open.

He has not done the same as BushCo.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Goldman Sachs, David Frumm, Morgan Stanley, and The Economist all agree with Krugman:

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman- ... ng-2011-10

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/10/t ... he-99.html

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/01/d ... ear-1.html

yrs,
rubato

[quaddriver]

Goldman Sachs, David Frumm, Morgan Stanley, and The Economist all agree with Krugman:

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman- ... ng-2011-10

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/10/t ... he-99.html

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/01/d ... ear-1.html

yrs,
rubato

Oh there's a good one, two of the firms that engineered the collapse agreeing with a clueless economist. Ya Ill bank on that one.

[Scooter]

This thread is FILLED with evidence that many Democrats in Congress as well as the White House were directly responsible for creating the situation that fostered the real estate bubble that inevitably burst and precipitated the current recession.

Complete crap. A policy to increase lending to those with low or moderate incomes is nothing even remotely the same as a policy to lend to those with bad credit or to those who are buying more house than they can afford. The former is what successive administrations attempted to do. The latter is what banks did all on their own because they believed it would make them money They gambled, we lost.