Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I guess just outlawing shady loans is out of the question?

Might decrease campaign contributions

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I guess just outlawing shady loans is out of the question?

Yes.
Freedom to gamble everything you've got should be legal.
We just don't have to support it with a safety net.

But the current problems with market liquidity show the downside of not banning the practice as so many other countries have done. People will do it if it's legal, safety net or no, with potentially disastrous consequences for the economy. You'll be out of pocket for that, believe me.

I think the current situation only reflects it being allowed under the security protection of the Fed.
The proper solution to me would have been to allow it but for those that did no protection. That will reduce greatly those that deposit money with lenders that choose risky loans as well as lenders willing to do so. For those that want the gamble though the option would still exist.

Farmerkev wrote:

Freedom to gamble everything you've got should be legal.

Should you be allowed to gamble the integrity of your kneecaps? 'Cause that's all the collateral most people have.

Considering mortgages, property value and municipal tax base, people are gambling with much more than their own money.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

You have an odd collection of "freedoms" you feel must be safeguarded.

Yeah, it encompasses just about every action that someone would want to do as long as it could be done with the minimum of impact on others.
The list is nearly endless in fact. That this place has such a narrow focus means few are talked about.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

You have an odd collection of "freedoms" you feel must be safeguarded.

Yeah, it encompasses just about every action that someone would want to do as long as it could be done with the minimum of impact on others.
The list is nearly endless in fact. That this place has such a narrow focus means few are talked about.

And this mortgage mess isn't a freedom which, when exercised, affects others?

You for example strike me as a fiscally responsible fellow, yet you'll be paying the fallout from this mess. How is that not the very definition of an action that affects others?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Yeah, it encompasses just about every action that someone would want to do as long as it could be done with the minimum of impact on others.
The list is nearly endless in fact. That this place has such a narrow focus means few are talked about.

And this mortgage mess isn't a freedom which, when exercised, affects others?

You for example strike me as a fiscally responsible fellow, yet you'll be paying the fallout from this mess. How is that not the very definition of an action that affects others?

It will effect others only because it was allowed under the Federal protection laws.
It shouldn't have been an insured practice.
Quite different from making it illegal.
I'd place this firmly under the "once again Fed incompetence" banner.
You're the guy that wants to make it illegal, I just want it non-sanctioned.

Thats exactly right, we want it non-sanctioned like it used to be.
Kev, I'm sorry but you live in a fantasy world. The Government will ALWAYS step in to prevent a financial crisis and in particular to save the asses of Big Banking. Don't you notice how ALL of the reform in this area has been 100% in the interests of corporations?
The rights "make everyone be responsible till their eyes bleed" only applies to individuals who aren't rich. Conservatives will never have any credibility with me until they do something about the web of protections that allow profit and ownership without responsibility under ridiculous and convoluted structuring schemes.

Anyone else here heard of Basel II  ?

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Thats exactly right, we want it non-sanctioned like it used to be.
Kev, I'm sorry but you live in a fantasy world. The Government will ALWAYS step in to prevent a financial crisis and in particular to save the asses of Big Banking. Don't you notice how ALL of the reform in this area has been 100% in the interests of corporations?
The rights "make everyone be responsible till their eyes bleed" only applies to individuals who aren't rich. Conservatives will never have any credibility with me until they do something about the web of protections that allow profit and ownership without responsibility under ridiculous and convoluted structuring schemes.

You really don't read what I say do you.
I just said to remove those protections for things like this and that they were to blame.
The fantasy is all in your head.
The Federal gov't shouldn't be insuring risky behavior. Your liberals are in charge and about to have Congress and the Executive.
Change it if your side has any credibility.

So, let the law allow this and even greater financial irresponsibility by speculators and Banks and then when they cause a national financial crisis just let the scammers take the rest of us down with them?
That's your answer?
Bear in mind in the speculative markets the real movers and shakers make their money at the front end in fees and commissions and really don't give a rats ass what happens down the road.

I didn't read everything, but I get the whole problem.  I've only owned my place for just over 2 years and I was offered all sorts of scary mortgage deals...I finally wised up a talked to my Dad about them and he basically said to burn them all.  I ended up going to my bank and getting a 30 year fixed GI loan.

People who decided to get 5-year or 10-year ARMs pretty much deserve what they are getting; from what I understand the whole purpose of an ARM is to wait the market for a few years to see if the interest rates go down and then re-finance into a fixed mortgage. If these people failed to do that, well they should have done more research into the mortgage business.

The original fools I talked to were trying to get me to sign two mortgages to avoid mortgage insurance, it sounded shady so I eventually told them to kiss off.  Not to mention they went all ballistic whenever I mentioned GI loan; smurf you, I served my country and that is one of the perks I get for doing it.

My bank didn't give a rats ass whether I did a GI loan or not; if fact they said I could get whatever loan I wanted, since my credit was quite good.

-mark

Last edited by avkills (2007-08-12 9:17 pm)

jeremiah256 wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

So, let the law allow this and even greater financial irresponsibility by speculators and Banks and then when they cause a national financial crisis just let the scammers take the rest of us down with them?
That's your answer?
Bear in mind in the speculative markets the real movers and shakers make their money at the front end in fees and commissions and really don't give a rats ass what happens down the road.

Will you put your money in a bank that doesn't have FDIC?

My issue is that allowing these idiotic loans affects my pursuit of happiness.  Liquidity (whether the Fed intervenes or not) will dry up.  That means it's harder for small businesses to get money, people to buy investment property, etc.  Hedge Funds are configured to avoid having the oversight of other securities.  That's fine until they start grow to the point where their collapse would affect the American economy, which they have.  No right is absolute.  My right to bear arms doesn't mean I get to own certain weapons because of public safety.  Hedge Funds and their secrecy are too dangerous to allow as they now exist.

They only grew to this size because the Fed insured it.
Think about it this way.
Millions lose everything in Vegas. How much does it effect you?
Take away the Fed insurance on risky practices and risky banks.
People adverse to risk won't put money in them or at least only what they can afford to lose. Hell, I know people with money in 15 different banks just so they can stay under the limit. The banks that are willing to give up FDIC will have less money available to make those risky loans with. The problem would have never gotten this big.

jeremiah256 wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

They only grew to this size because the Fed insured it.
Think about it this way.
Millions lose everything in Vegas. How much does it effect you?
Take away the Fed insurance on risky practices and risky banks.
People adverse to risk won't put money in them or at least only what they can afford to lose. Hell, I know people with money in 15 different banks just so they can stay under the limit. The banks that are willing to give up FDIC will have less money available to make those risky loans with. The problem would have never gotten this big.

I'm trying to remember my accounting classes so forgive me if I'm way off.  As I understand it, the FDIC doesn't care about risks a bank takes but the capital they keep on hand.  If risk is to be part of the equation on whether a bank gets to put that FDIC sticker in their window, doesn't a new law have to be written or am I missing something?

State and Fed auditors go over everything in a bank these days.
Loans included. I've been called with questions by them.
It's much more than money on hand.
Even if it was only based on the ratio there is nothing to say the rules couldn't be changed to include practices.
There is simply no good reason to make something illegal to keep from supporting it.