35.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Oct 29, 2012, 23:23
35.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 23:23
Oct 29, 2012, 23:23
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:30:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:24:
Beamer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 20:40:
I sadly worked for a subprime mortgage company in the early 2000s. One of the better ones, sadly. No one was forcing anyone to give those loans, in fact the companies were bending over backwards. Did your numbers not work? We fired one sales manager for advising his loan officer to advise his customer to photoshop his pay stubs. That guy was rehired at a much bigger company in under a week.

No, everyone wanted to give bad loans (and, incidentally, get bad loans.) The thought was that everything would be consolidated, sold off in a package, and probably work out for the best. If not, well, by that point it was someone else's problem.

As it turned out, it was all of our problem. Pretty much everyone deserves blame here. Bankers. Loan officers. Borrowers. Bill Clinton. George Bush.
Don't forget Congress. Aside from the Bankers, who sure as hell should have known better, they are the most guilty. Banks are supposed to do the underwriting and not tell people they can afford more than they actually can, but I had that happen when I was looking for a house. Thankfully I had the sense to go with what I knew I could afford, and get a regular 30yr fixed mortgage, but a lot of banks were just telling people what they wanted to hear. That homes are a great investment and that they'll just keep going up in value, so it's no problem, and we've got this cool new type of mortgage so you can have affordable payments, etc.

It was fraud, fueled by greed, plain and simple, but a lot of people were too ignorant about finance and/or too greedy to care, so they signed for those stupid loans. Probably why Congress was so quick to bail out the banks too, as they were largely responsible for the laws that allowed it to happen. Of course they still caved to the banks afterwards and made sure to water down and stonewall all the reforms so that they banks stay fat and happy and still legally allowed to continue screwing with the economy.

Maybe the investment bankers should have, but they didn't. They didn't know better. Their models were too complex and faulty. And no one really knew.

But banks weren't underwriting these, subprime mortgage companies were. New regulations started originators, who would do the loan themselves then sell them. If no one would buy they loan they'd put them into scratch-and-dent, meaning they'd package a whole bunch of bad loans together and sell them off. Odds were only a small amount would foreclose. Turns out most did.


Yeah, you're right that they probably didn't actually know what was going on, at least not until it was too late. But everyone was doing things that were dumb and/or outright fraud. Either by duping the lendees, or by duping investors, or by duping ratings agencies, etc. Everyone thought they could make it someone else's problem. A lot of those packages were full of terrible loans and were still given AAA ratings and sold off as such. They were making so much money off of it that nobody cared. They just wanted their fat bonuses and someone else could deal with the fallout.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
2.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
3.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
9.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
10.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
4.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
5.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
7.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
44.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
46.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
47.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
48.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
49.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
50.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
52.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
        Re: Morning Legal Briefs
54.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
         Re: Morning Legal Briefs
55.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
          Re: Morning Legal Briefs
58.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
           Re: Morning Legal Briefs
14.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
15.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
16.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
17.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
22.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
24.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
25.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
        Re: Morning Legal Briefs
18.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
19.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
20.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
      removed
23.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
26.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
27.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
28.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
31.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
 35.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
        Re: Morning Legal Briefs
36.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
         Re: Morning Legal Briefs
37.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
          Re: Morning Legal Briefs
30.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
32.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
33.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
34.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
39.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
41.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
        Re: Morning Legal Briefs
42.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
        Re: Morning Legal Briefs
29.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
6.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
8.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
11.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
12.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
13.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
21.
Oct 29, 2012Oct 29 2012
40.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
38.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
43.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
45.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
51.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
53.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
56.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
57.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
59.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
60.
Oct 30, 2012Oct 30 2012
        Re: Morning Legal Briefs