[SK in CV]

I have to agree with many of the others, that there is plenty of blame to go around, and virtually no one group is guiltless. From financiers to put the funds up to build homes, the builders, agents, brokers (of all types), lenders, the all but non-existent underwriters, and not least the buyers.

I’ve been inclined, over the last years, to identify the lenders, whose incentive to lend with impugnity had been unleashed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the emergence of an unlimited supply of funds through securitization, as the prime culprit. Recent hearings in Washington confirmed these suspicions.

I’ve spent a few minutes trying to track down the origin of this quote from a liveblog of the WaMu hearings, so far to no avail, but the words, if accurate, are damning.

According to the FBI, 80% of mortgage fraud is committed by the lender. We’re not talking about stupid loan officers allowing borrowers to get away with something crazy that is bad for the bank. We’re talking about clever loan officers pushing fraudulent documents in order to score bigger paychecks, and bank executives looking the other way so that they can keep getting big paychecks from the securitization machine.

This isn’t a problem unique to WaMu. This is how the U.S. mortgage system operated for half a decade.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041513/liveblogging-washington-mutual-hearing

80% of the fraud. Not borrowers who lied on their applications. But lenders who encouraged and knowingly looked the other way. Stunning.

[SK in CV]

I have to agree with many of the others, that there is plenty of blame to go around, and virtually no one group is guiltless. From financiers to put the funds up to build homes, the builders, agents, brokers (of all types), lenders, the all but non-existent underwriters, and not least the buyers.

I’ve been inclined, over the last years, to identify the lenders, whose incentive to lend with impugnity had been unleashed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the emergence of an unlimited supply of funds through securitization, as the prime culprit. Recent hearings in Washington confirmed these suspicions.

I’ve spent a few minutes trying to track down the origin of this quote from a liveblog of the WaMu hearings, so far to no avail, but the words, if accurate, are damning.

According to the FBI, 80% of mortgage fraud is committed by the lender. We’re not talking about stupid loan officers allowing borrowers to get away with something crazy that is bad for the bank. We’re talking about clever loan officers pushing fraudulent documents in order to score bigger paychecks, and bank executives looking the other way so that they can keep getting big paychecks from the securitization machine.

This isn’t a problem unique to WaMu. This is how the U.S. mortgage system operated for half a decade.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041513/liveblogging-washington-mutual-hearing

80% of the fraud. Not borrowers who lied on their applications. But lenders who encouraged and knowingly looked the other way. Stunning.

[SK in CV]

I have to agree with many of the others, that there is plenty of blame to go around, and virtually no one group is guiltless. From financiers to put the funds up to build homes, the builders, agents, brokers (of all types), lenders, the all but non-existent underwriters, and not least the buyers.

I’ve been inclined, over the last years, to identify the lenders, whose incentive to lend with impugnity had been unleashed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the emergence of an unlimited supply of funds through securitization, as the prime culprit. Recent hearings in Washington confirmed these suspicions.

I’ve spent a few minutes trying to track down the origin of this quote from a liveblog of the WaMu hearings, so far to no avail, but the words, if accurate, are damning.

According to the FBI, 80% of mortgage fraud is committed by the lender. We’re not talking about stupid loan officers allowing borrowers to get away with something crazy that is bad for the bank. We’re talking about clever loan officers pushing fraudulent documents in order to score bigger paychecks, and bank executives looking the other way so that they can keep getting big paychecks from the securitization machine.

This isn’t a problem unique to WaMu. This is how the U.S. mortgage system operated for half a decade.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041513/liveblogging-washington-mutual-hearing

80% of the fraud. Not borrowers who lied on their applications. But lenders who encouraged and knowingly looked the other way. Stunning.

[SK in CV]

I have to agree with many of the others, that there is plenty of blame to go around, and virtually no one group is guiltless. From financiers to put the funds up to build homes, the builders, agents, brokers (of all types), lenders, the all but non-existent underwriters, and not least the buyers.

I’ve been inclined, over the last years, to identify the lenders, whose incentive to lend with impugnity had been unleashed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the emergence of an unlimited supply of funds through securitization, as the prime culprit. Recent hearings in Washington confirmed these suspicions.

I’ve spent a few minutes trying to track down the origin of this quote from a liveblog of the WaMu hearings, so far to no avail, but the words, if accurate, are damning.

According to the FBI, 80% of mortgage fraud is committed by the lender. We’re not talking about stupid loan officers allowing borrowers to get away with something crazy that is bad for the bank. We’re talking about clever loan officers pushing fraudulent documents in order to score bigger paychecks, and bank executives looking the other way so that they can keep getting big paychecks from the securitization machine.

This isn’t a problem unique to WaMu. This is how the U.S. mortgage system operated for half a decade.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010041513/liveblogging-washington-mutual-hearing

80% of the fraud. Not borrowers who lied on their applications. But lenders who encouraged and knowingly looked the other way. Stunning.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]

Damn. Once again I forgot my /snark tag and got my post mis-interpreted. I was attempting to point out that many opponents like to claim that the bill will kill business while at the same time opposing single payer — which would have solved the very problem they are talking about.

Both sides seem to agree that insurance should be decoupled from employment. Single payer is a great option to do so, but then the socialism boogie man comes out and it’s all over.

I would have preferred single payer to what we ended up with, but fall in the “it’s better than nothing” camp.[/quote]

My apologies. We are in total agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]And don’t forget the increases in California sales tax.

And I think Bartlett has been hanging around with Colin Powell too much.[/quote]

Yeah, those guys that put common sense and..ya know…actual facts….above party ideology. Dontcha hate it?

And remind me, the california sales tax increase was an Obama thing, was it?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]And don’t forget the increases in California sales tax.

And I think Bartlett has been hanging around with Colin Powell too much.[/quote]

Yeah, those guys that put common sense and..ya know…actual facts….above party ideology. Dontcha hate it?

And remind me, the california sales tax increase was an Obama thing, was it?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]And don’t forget the increases in California sales tax.

And I think Bartlett has been hanging around with Colin Powell too much.[/quote]

Yeah, those guys that put common sense and..ya know…actual facts….above party ideology. Dontcha hate it?

And remind me, the california sales tax increase was an Obama thing, was it?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]And don’t forget the increases in California sales tax.

And I think Bartlett has been hanging around with Colin Powell too much.[/quote]

Yeah, those guys that put common sense and..ya know…actual facts….above party ideology. Dontcha hate it?

And remind me, the california sales tax increase was an Obama thing, was it?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]And don’t forget the increases in California sales tax.

And I think Bartlett has been hanging around with Colin Powell too much.[/quote]

Yeah, those guys that put common sense and..ya know…actual facts….above party ideology. Dontcha hate it?

And remind me, the california sales tax increase was an Obama thing, was it?

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.[/quote]

I don’t know if Brian does. I know I do. Because I do it. I pay for a very decent small group Aetna HMO with a $15 co-pay. But even if i went to their lowest co-pay of $10, only those older than 59 would cost more than $8500 a year. 55 to 59 years old would cost $8,364 per year. (I’m looking at their renewal rate tables from 7-1-09 as i type.) Even with a 1.1 modifier, only those over 54 would be more than $8500 a year.

I’m pretty sure large group plans would be cheaper.

[Author]

Posts