[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering , just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.[/quote]

No, Goldman Sachs never came perilously close to foundering. They were ahead of the curve. Hell, there is evidence that they helped create the curve both on the way up and pushed it along on the way down, betting against the mortgage market (part and parcel to the fraud charges). Unlike almost every other large investment bank, they haven’t had a losing year through the recent past. Like all other finacials, their stock lost value, but regained most of it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering , just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.[/quote]

No, Goldman Sachs never came perilously close to foundering. They were ahead of the curve. Hell, there is evidence that they helped create the curve both on the way up and pushed it along on the way down, betting against the mortgage market (part and parcel to the fraud charges). Unlike almost every other large investment bank, they haven’t had a losing year through the recent past. Like all other finacials, their stock lost value, but regained most of it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering , just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.[/quote]

No, Goldman Sachs never came perilously close to foundering. They were ahead of the curve. Hell, there is evidence that they helped create the curve both on the way up and pushed it along on the way down, betting against the mortgage market (part and parcel to the fraud charges). Unlike almost every other large investment bank, they haven’t had a losing year through the recent past. Like all other finacials, their stock lost value, but regained most of it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Do a little research on what investment bankers call the “overnight repo” market. All the major houses survive on these type short-term lending facilities. Bear Stearns was scuttled, and within a few days, when the Street lost confidence in them and their repo facilities dried up. Lehman and Goldman also found themselves in this same situation and Goldman came periously close to foundering , just like Bear and Lehman. Ever wonder why they didn’t go under, too? The answer is right there in front of you.[/quote]

No, Goldman Sachs never came perilously close to foundering. They were ahead of the curve. Hell, there is evidence that they helped create the curve both on the way up and pushed it along on the way down, betting against the mortgage market (part and parcel to the fraud charges). Unlike almost every other large investment bank, they haven’t had a losing year through the recent past. Like all other finacials, their stock lost value, but regained most of it.

[SK in CV]

Too early to tell.

Certainly the market hasn’t decided that GS is history. It will be interesting to see where they open and then move tomorrow. Despite the big drop on Friday, the stock is still trading at the lower limit of its range over the last 10 months, and it was even lower just 6 weeks ago. It’s not a stock I follow, so i have no idea what the drop in january that lasted 8 weeks was caused by. But it’s interesting that friday it didn’t drop as far as that trough. It fell quickly and gained support less than an hour later. No predictions, but I certainly wouldn’t miss them.

[SK in CV]

Too early to tell.

Certainly the market hasn’t decided that GS is history. It will be interesting to see where they open and then move tomorrow. Despite the big drop on Friday, the stock is still trading at the lower limit of its range over the last 10 months, and it was even lower just 6 weeks ago. It’s not a stock I follow, so i have no idea what the drop in january that lasted 8 weeks was caused by. But it’s interesting that friday it didn’t drop as far as that trough. It fell quickly and gained support less than an hour later. No predictions, but I certainly wouldn’t miss them.

[SK in CV]

Too early to tell.

Certainly the market hasn’t decided that GS is history. It will be interesting to see where they open and then move tomorrow. Despite the big drop on Friday, the stock is still trading at the lower limit of its range over the last 10 months, and it was even lower just 6 weeks ago. It’s not a stock I follow, so i have no idea what the drop in january that lasted 8 weeks was caused by. But it’s interesting that friday it didn’t drop as far as that trough. It fell quickly and gained support less than an hour later. No predictions, but I certainly wouldn’t miss them.

[SK in CV]

Too early to tell.

Certainly the market hasn’t decided that GS is history. It will be interesting to see where they open and then move tomorrow. Despite the big drop on Friday, the stock is still trading at the lower limit of its range over the last 10 months, and it was even lower just 6 weeks ago. It’s not a stock I follow, so i have no idea what the drop in january that lasted 8 weeks was caused by. But it’s interesting that friday it didn’t drop as far as that trough. It fell quickly and gained support less than an hour later. No predictions, but I certainly wouldn’t miss them.

[SK in CV]

Too early to tell.

Certainly the market hasn’t decided that GS is history. It will be interesting to see where they open and then move tomorrow. Despite the big drop on Friday, the stock is still trading at the lower limit of its range over the last 10 months, and it was even lower just 6 weeks ago. It’s not a stock I follow, so i have no idea what the drop in january that lasted 8 weeks was caused by. But it’s interesting that friday it didn’t drop as far as that trough. It fell quickly and gained support less than an hour later. No predictions, but I certainly wouldn’t miss them.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Uh, yeah, regarding CRA:http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

And before you accuse me of any sort of partisanship, that’s Thomas DiLorenzo writing on LewRockwell.com, a decidely non-GOP friendly website.

While SK might attempt to argue that CRA’s intent was to use proper lending guidelines and standards, the exact opposite happened (on a government program! Imagine that!).

Further, I would make a point of checking your math regarding “minority” defaults, especially in lower-middle and lower class neighborhoods. Your take doesn’t square with the facts.[/quote]

First, I don’t think identifying Lee Rockwell as non-GOP friendly really increases his credibility. He’s opposed to most all government, and even moreso government regulations.

Secondly, his claims about the CRE being responsible for the subprime collapse is not borne out by the evidence. Here’s the thing. The CRE only applies to depository lenders. Not non-bank lenders like Countrywide and New Century. In 2006, the biggest year for subprime lending, only 2 or 3 of the largest subprime lenders were depository banks (Wamu and Fremont come to mind, there may have been a 3rd.) Most banks shied away from the subprime market. That market was dominated by non-depository lenders.

While there probably was some loosening of lending standards when the CRE was passed, it was over 20 years later that the securitization of the mortgage market became the rule rather than the exception. The loosening of lending standards was a direct results of lenders not retaining exposure, selling off substantially all of the risk to the mortgage backed securities market.

I think identifying the CRA as the cause of the collapse of that market says a lot more about those making the claim than the market itself. The claim is simply not supported by the evidence.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Uh, yeah, regarding CRA:http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

And before you accuse me of any sort of partisanship, that’s Thomas DiLorenzo writing on LewRockwell.com, a decidely non-GOP friendly website.

While SK might attempt to argue that CRA’s intent was to use proper lending guidelines and standards, the exact opposite happened (on a government program! Imagine that!).

Further, I would make a point of checking your math regarding “minority” defaults, especially in lower-middle and lower class neighborhoods. Your take doesn’t square with the facts.[/quote]

First, I don’t think identifying Lee Rockwell as non-GOP friendly really increases his credibility. He’s opposed to most all government, and even moreso government regulations.

Secondly, his claims about the CRE being responsible for the subprime collapse is not borne out by the evidence. Here’s the thing. The CRE only applies to depository lenders. Not non-bank lenders like Countrywide and New Century. In 2006, the biggest year for subprime lending, only 2 or 3 of the largest subprime lenders were depository banks (Wamu and Fremont come to mind, there may have been a 3rd.) Most banks shied away from the subprime market. That market was dominated by non-depository lenders.

While there probably was some loosening of lending standards when the CRE was passed, it was over 20 years later that the securitization of the mortgage market became the rule rather than the exception. The loosening of lending standards was a direct results of lenders not retaining exposure, selling off substantially all of the risk to the mortgage backed securities market.

I think identifying the CRA as the cause of the collapse of that market says a lot more about those making the claim than the market itself. The claim is simply not supported by the evidence.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Uh, yeah, regarding CRA:http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

And before you accuse me of any sort of partisanship, that’s Thomas DiLorenzo writing on LewRockwell.com, a decidely non-GOP friendly website.

While SK might attempt to argue that CRA’s intent was to use proper lending guidelines and standards, the exact opposite happened (on a government program! Imagine that!).

Further, I would make a point of checking your math regarding “minority” defaults, especially in lower-middle and lower class neighborhoods. Your take doesn’t square with the facts.[/quote]

First, I don’t think identifying Lee Rockwell as non-GOP friendly really increases his credibility. He’s opposed to most all government, and even moreso government regulations.

Secondly, his claims about the CRE being responsible for the subprime collapse is not borne out by the evidence. Here’s the thing. The CRE only applies to depository lenders. Not non-bank lenders like Countrywide and New Century. In 2006, the biggest year for subprime lending, only 2 or 3 of the largest subprime lenders were depository banks (Wamu and Fremont come to mind, there may have been a 3rd.) Most banks shied away from the subprime market. That market was dominated by non-depository lenders.

While there probably was some loosening of lending standards when the CRE was passed, it was over 20 years later that the securitization of the mortgage market became the rule rather than the exception. The loosening of lending standards was a direct results of lenders not retaining exposure, selling off substantially all of the risk to the mortgage backed securities market.

I think identifying the CRA as the cause of the collapse of that market says a lot more about those making the claim than the market itself. The claim is simply not supported by the evidence.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Uh, yeah, regarding CRA:http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

And before you accuse me of any sort of partisanship, that’s Thomas DiLorenzo writing on LewRockwell.com, a decidely non-GOP friendly website.

While SK might attempt to argue that CRA’s intent was to use proper lending guidelines and standards, the exact opposite happened (on a government program! Imagine that!).

Further, I would make a point of checking your math regarding “minority” defaults, especially in lower-middle and lower class neighborhoods. Your take doesn’t square with the facts.[/quote]

First, I don’t think identifying Lee Rockwell as non-GOP friendly really increases his credibility. He’s opposed to most all government, and even moreso government regulations.

Secondly, his claims about the CRE being responsible for the subprime collapse is not borne out by the evidence. Here’s the thing. The CRE only applies to depository lenders. Not non-bank lenders like Countrywide and New Century. In 2006, the biggest year for subprime lending, only 2 or 3 of the largest subprime lenders were depository banks (Wamu and Fremont come to mind, there may have been a 3rd.) Most banks shied away from the subprime market. That market was dominated by non-depository lenders.

While there probably was some loosening of lending standards when the CRE was passed, it was over 20 years later that the securitization of the mortgage market became the rule rather than the exception. The loosening of lending standards was a direct results of lenders not retaining exposure, selling off substantially all of the risk to the mortgage backed securities market.

I think identifying the CRA as the cause of the collapse of that market says a lot more about those making the claim than the market itself. The claim is simply not supported by the evidence.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Uh, yeah, regarding CRA:http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

And before you accuse me of any sort of partisanship, that’s Thomas DiLorenzo writing on LewRockwell.com, a decidely non-GOP friendly website.

While SK might attempt to argue that CRA’s intent was to use proper lending guidelines and standards, the exact opposite happened (on a government program! Imagine that!).

Further, I would make a point of checking your math regarding “minority” defaults, especially in lower-middle and lower class neighborhoods. Your take doesn’t square with the facts.[/quote]

First, I don’t think identifying Lee Rockwell as non-GOP friendly really increases his credibility. He’s opposed to most all government, and even moreso government regulations.

Secondly, his claims about the CRE being responsible for the subprime collapse is not borne out by the evidence. Here’s the thing. The CRE only applies to depository lenders. Not non-bank lenders like Countrywide and New Century. In 2006, the biggest year for subprime lending, only 2 or 3 of the largest subprime lenders were depository banks (Wamu and Fremont come to mind, there may have been a 3rd.) Most banks shied away from the subprime market. That market was dominated by non-depository lenders.

While there probably was some loosening of lending standards when the CRE was passed, it was over 20 years later that the securitization of the mortgage market became the rule rather than the exception. The loosening of lending standards was a direct results of lenders not retaining exposure, selling off substantially all of the risk to the mortgage backed securities market.

I think identifying the CRA as the cause of the collapse of that market says a lot more about those making the claim than the market itself. The claim is simply not supported by the evidence.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
Then why did Freddie and Fannie buy the paper from the banks who issued loans mandated by the policy?[/quote]

That’s kind of like asking why apples are red. They bought the loans because thats what they do.

If you’re somehow arguing that Fannie and Freddie are to blame for the current mess, you need to review what happened over the last 5 years. The percentage and dollar value of non-GSE loans skyrocketed. The GSE’s stayed relatively flat in comparison.

[Author]

Posts