- This topic has 210 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 24, 2009 at 11:24 AM #436965July 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM #436205
davelj
Participant[quote=Rt.66]”industry is getting smart”
He wanted to borrow $80k to buy a $325k property with a home and income producing commercial property on it. He was putting $245k of his own money in it.
Did you mean to say “consumers are getting smart”? The bank made an absurdly bad decision in this case.[/quote]
You don’t know the condition of the bank, so you don’t know what other motives – aside from creditworthiness – might be at hand here.
Struggling banks that have to de-lever can’t make new loans – even to good customers. In fact, they often have to chase out good customers just to get their loans off the books so that their capital ratios improve.
Again, you have to know the FULL story before you cast aspersions. Although it could be that the bank is just a bunch of dummies. If so, they’ve got plenty of company.
July 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM #436411Participant[quote=Rt.66]”industry is getting smart”
He wanted to borrow $80k to buy a $325k property with a home and income producing commercial property on it. He was putting $245k of his own money in it.
Did you mean to say “consumers are getting smart”? The bank made an absurdly bad decision in this case.[/quote]
You don’t know the condition of the bank, so you don’t know what other motives – aside from creditworthiness – might be at hand here.
Struggling banks that have to de-lever can’t make new loans – even to good customers. In fact, they often have to chase out good customers just to get their loans off the books so that their capital ratios improve.
Again, you have to know the FULL story before you cast aspersions. Although it could be that the bank is just a bunch of dummies. If so, they’ve got plenty of company.
July 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM #436730Participant[quote=Rt.66]”industry is getting smart”
He wanted to borrow $80k to buy a $325k property with a home and income producing commercial property on it. He was putting $245k of his own money in it.
Did you mean to say “consumers are getting smart”? The bank made an absurdly bad decision in this case.[/quote]
You don’t know the condition of the bank, so you don’t know what other motives – aside from creditworthiness – might be at hand here.
Struggling banks that have to de-lever can’t make new loans – even to good customers. In fact, they often have to chase out good customers just to get their loans off the books so that their capital ratios improve.
Again, you have to know the FULL story before you cast aspersions. Although it could be that the bank is just a bunch of dummies. If so, they’ve got plenty of company.
July 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM #436803Participant[quote=Rt.66]”industry is getting smart”
He wanted to borrow $80k to buy a $325k property with a home and income producing commercial property on it. He was putting $245k of his own money in it.
Did you mean to say “consumers are getting smart”? The bank made an absurdly bad decision in this case.[/quote]
You don’t know the condition of the bank, so you don’t know what other motives – aside from creditworthiness – might be at hand here.
Struggling banks that have to de-lever can’t make new loans – even to good customers. In fact, they often have to chase out good customers just to get their loans off the books so that their capital ratios improve.
Again, you have to know the FULL story before you cast aspersions. Although it could be that the bank is just a bunch of dummies. If so, they’ve got plenty of company.
July 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM #436970Participant[quote=Rt.66]”industry is getting smart”
He wanted to borrow $80k to buy a $325k property with a home and income producing commercial property on it. He was putting $245k of his own money in it.
Did you mean to say “consumers are getting smart”? The bank made an absurdly bad decision in this case.[/quote]
You don’t know the condition of the bank, so you don’t know what other motives – aside from creditworthiness – might be at hand here.
Struggling banks that have to de-lever can’t make new loans – even to good customers. In fact, they often have to chase out good customers just to get their loans off the books so that their capital ratios improve.
Again, you have to know the FULL story before you cast aspersions. Although it could be that the bank is just a bunch of dummies. If so, they’ve got plenty of company.
July 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM #436250briansd1
Guest[quote=davelj]
In any society, some folks are more equal than others (to paraphrase Orwell). It’s not fair; it’s just the way it is. In our society, Goldman holds an exalted place. I’m not happy about it, but because I know that’s the way things are, and that it’s always going to be someone (substitute Goldman Sachs for some other institution) I don’t get too upset about it. I’m a pragmatist, so I just accept it and move on.[/quote]
I don’t think that it’s a question of anger.
I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on.
Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option.
Aside from TARP, banks are getting plenty of help in the form of lower cost of funds to improve their profit margins and recapitalize.
I would have preferred nationalizing the banks (and firing their managers) rather that subsidizing them indefinitely.
July 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM #436456Guest[quote=davelj]
In any society, some folks are more equal than others (to paraphrase Orwell). It’s not fair; it’s just the way it is. In our society, Goldman holds an exalted place. I’m not happy about it, but because I know that’s the way things are, and that it’s always going to be someone (substitute Goldman Sachs for some other institution) I don’t get too upset about it. I’m a pragmatist, so I just accept it and move on.[/quote]
I don’t think that it’s a question of anger.
I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on.
Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option.
Aside from TARP, banks are getting plenty of help in the form of lower cost of funds to improve their profit margins and recapitalize.
I would have preferred nationalizing the banks (and firing their managers) rather that subsidizing them indefinitely.
July 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM #436775Guest[quote=davelj]
In any society, some folks are more equal than others (to paraphrase Orwell). It’s not fair; it’s just the way it is. In our society, Goldman holds an exalted place. I’m not happy about it, but because I know that’s the way things are, and that it’s always going to be someone (substitute Goldman Sachs for some other institution) I don’t get too upset about it. I’m a pragmatist, so I just accept it and move on.[/quote]
I don’t think that it’s a question of anger.
I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on.
Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option.
Aside from TARP, banks are getting plenty of help in the form of lower cost of funds to improve their profit margins and recapitalize.
I would have preferred nationalizing the banks (and firing their managers) rather that subsidizing them indefinitely.
July 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM #436847Guest[quote=davelj]
In any society, some folks are more equal than others (to paraphrase Orwell). It’s not fair; it’s just the way it is. In our society, Goldman holds an exalted place. I’m not happy about it, but because I know that’s the way things are, and that it’s always going to be someone (substitute Goldman Sachs for some other institution) I don’t get too upset about it. I’m a pragmatist, so I just accept it and move on.[/quote]
I don’t think that it’s a question of anger.
I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on.
Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option.
Aside from TARP, banks are getting plenty of help in the form of lower cost of funds to improve their profit margins and recapitalize.
I would have preferred nationalizing the banks (and firing their managers) rather that subsidizing them indefinitely.
July 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM #437015Guest[quote=davelj]
In any society, some folks are more equal than others (to paraphrase Orwell). It’s not fair; it’s just the way it is. In our society, Goldman holds an exalted place. I’m not happy about it, but because I know that’s the way things are, and that it’s always going to be someone (substitute Goldman Sachs for some other institution) I don’t get too upset about it. I’m a pragmatist, so I just accept it and move on.[/quote]
I don’t think that it’s a question of anger.
I do agree with you. I accept reality and move on. But I still recognize the truth. We should not ignore the inequalities in our society. The least we could do it be conscious of them. We may not have power to do anything about it but we should be aware of what’s going on.
Letting the banks collapse would collapse the economy also. So that was not an option.
Aside from TARP, banks are getting plenty of help in the form of lower cost of funds to improve their profit margins and recapitalize.
I would have preferred nationalizing the banks (and firing their managers) rather that subsidizing them indefinitely.
July 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM #436255Rt.66
Participantbriansd1,
The CEOs of the thousands of responsible banks who did not participate in bubble madness would probably disagree with you.They think that banks that deserve to fail from a series of bad decisions on top of disastrous decisions should be allowed to fail and the healthy and smart banks should be left to take the reins.
Instead the banks that give giant donations to Gov. Representatives are deemed too big to fail and we the tax payer get to subsidize their loses while they continue to this day to privatize their ill gotten gains.
July 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM #436461Participantbriansd1,
The CEOs of the thousands of responsible banks who did not participate in bubble madness would probably disagree with you.They think that banks that deserve to fail from a series of bad decisions on top of disastrous decisions should be allowed to fail and the healthy and smart banks should be left to take the reins.
Instead the banks that give giant donations to Gov. Representatives are deemed too big to fail and we the tax payer get to subsidize their loses while they continue to this day to privatize their ill gotten gains.
July 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM #436780Participantbriansd1,
The CEOs of the thousands of responsible banks who did not participate in bubble madness would probably disagree with you.They think that banks that deserve to fail from a series of bad decisions on top of disastrous decisions should be allowed to fail and the healthy and smart banks should be left to take the reins.
Instead the banks that give giant donations to Gov. Representatives are deemed too big to fail and we the tax payer get to subsidize their loses while they continue to this day to privatize their ill gotten gains.
July 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM #436852Participantbriansd1,
The CEOs of the thousands of responsible banks who did not participate in bubble madness would probably disagree with you.They think that banks that deserve to fail from a series of bad decisions on top of disastrous decisions should be allowed to fail and the healthy and smart banks should be left to take the reins.
Instead the banks that give giant donations to Gov. Representatives are deemed too big to fail and we the tax payer get to subsidize their loses while they continue to this day to privatize their ill gotten gains.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.