The Worst President Ever?

Yeah, gallup polls are meaningless when they are against Pres Barry, but his supporters had no problem using these exact numbers against Bush. Clowns.

This is all about meeting people’s needs (need to be PC, need to be idealistic, need to be right, need to feel important, need for money). After all the money is spent, which is now,  the liberals’ needs should be met for a long time.

Am I supposed to vote Republican no matter what because I’m in the investment industry?

I thought this was about Hoeckstra.

And what does this have to do with what is happening at firms?

I don’t like Obama.  The fact  is that the poll is meaningless.  He has no need to be popular right now. 

Bush/Cheney were proud to be at 50.1% in 2004…in politics, they call that winning!

Worst ever?  I would not even think it’s fair to name a second worst ever behind this guy, he is running away with this award.  People are catching on to this mess he is creating, no chance for re election.  All the college kids and poor that showed up at the polls last year will not show up in 2012, his administration will have a hard to replicating the rock star image a second time, it will no longer be history to go vote. 

I don’t like Obama.  The fact  is that the poll is meaningless.  He has no need to be popular right now. 

[quote=shantom1] And what does this have to do with what is happening at firms?

mel?

Nope, I’m a 15 year veteran of the business, but I pray every day the public does not find this site b/c it would be a major black eye to our industry…

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=shantom1] And what does this have to do with what is happening at firms?

Barack “One-Termer” Obama

Barack “One-Termer” Obama

Politics is tough…

PS…

Obama!!! with 8 years of knucklehead #1 and #2 mucking it all up, a new dynamic was welcomed by most.



Sarah Palin??? ouch!!! can you imagine?

I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many:



http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm







I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=shantom1]

As usual you show us how easy it is for anyone to get into this business irregardless of their mental capacity.

[/quote]





irregardless is not a word

mental capacity this, Mensa boy

[quote=Squash1]Politics is tough…

I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm



I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=shantom1]

As usual you show us how easy it is for anyone to get into this business irregardless of their mental capacity.

[/quote]





irregardless is not a word

mental capacity this, Mensa boy[/quote]



Next time you rehash some one else’s info you should first research it yourself (you might find this will also be an effective strategy to use in your line of work):



Webster’s online dictionary:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less

Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs

Function: adverb

Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.







Keep digging your hole toolbox, your move…

Lol just remembered that Sarah Palin was running for vice president. Could you imagine her meeting with the heads of Goldman, AIG, GM, etc. That would be precious.

[quote=borei] [



irregardless



Indeed.[/quote]



Your wrong dumb as*



you man enough to admit it?

i doubt it.



Irregardless is a term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century.

It is generally listed in dictionaries as “incorrect” or “nonstandard”.





the word is regardless



Grammar Girl here.



Today’s topic is irregardless.



Hi, Grammar Girl. I’m an English teacher in Boston, Massachusetts, and I am freaking out. One of my students tells me that irregardless is now a word, and apparently it’s been added to some dictionaries. Can you clear this up for me. This is serious panic time.







Irregardless versus Regardless



First, let’s talk about irregardless. Some people mistakenly use irregardless when they mean “regardless.” Regardless means “regard less,” “without regard,” or despite something. For example, Squiggly will eat chocolate regardless of the consequences.



The prefix ir- (i-r) is a negative prefix, so if you add the prefix ir to a word that’s already negative like regardless, you’re making a double-negative word that literally means “without without regard.”



Language experts speculate that irregardless comes from a combination of the words regardless and irrespective and that another reason people might say “irregardless” is that they are following the pattern of words like irregular and irreplaceable. But regardless already has the -less suffix on the end, so it’s not like those other words.





Standard versus Nonstandard English



Now, on to dictionaries. Although it’s true that the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary all list the word irregardless, they also note that it’s considered nonstandard. Listing a word as nonstandard is a way that dictionaries concede that a word is in common use, but isn’t really a proper word. Standard language is defined as the language spoken by educated native speakers (1), but comprehensive dictionaries also include nonstandard words, dialect, colloquialisms, and jargon–words like ain’t, conversate, and irregardless. It seems pretty common for people to look up a word in a dictionary, and if it’s there, they think it’s fine to use that word every circumstance. It’s the “Look, it’s a word!” phenomenon. But you have to look a little further to see what kind of word it is, and if it’s nonstandard in some way, then use it with caution. You’ll sound uneducated if you go around saying things like I ain’t gonna conversate with him irregardless of the consequences.



Sometimes words make the transition from nonstandard to standard English. My dictionaries assure me that snuck is a word that falls into this category (although I know that will upset some of you). But since many educated people still rail against irregardless, and the word isn’t commonly seen in edited writing, I don’t believe irregardless is going to make the transition to standard language any time soon.



Prescriptive versus Descriptive Dictionaries



And one final thought about dictionaries—irregardless was listed in every dictionary I checked, but sometimes words will show up in one dictionary and not another. And it’s important to realize that there are different kinds of dictionaries. For example, there are prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries. A prescriptive dictionary focuses on the way the language should be according to traditional rules, and a descriptive dictionary focuses on the language that is actually in use by the population. So a descriptive dictionary is likely to include words that a prescriptive dictionary would leave out. Many older dictionaries are prescriptive, but most modern dictionaries are descriptive. Some people think the American Heritage Dictionary is the most prescriptive modern dictionary (2). It still includes nonstandard words like irregardless, but it seems to make stronger statements against them than other dictionaries.



Book Winners



I have three more book winners this week. Steve F., Mary N., and Greg V. win a copy of my audiobook: Grammar Girl’s Quick and Dirty Tips to Clean Up Your Writing. They were entered into the giveaway by signing up for the free e-mail newsletter at QuickAndDirtyTips.com. If you sign up for the newsletter you’ll be entered into the giveaway, and you’ll also get a free grammar tip and links to all the new show topics. We send it out every couple of weeks.



This week the Mighty Mommy has a show I enjoyed about how to take a break when you’re sick. I’ve had a bad cold, so it hit home. I’m not a mommy, but I still need help figuring out how to take a break when I’m sick.You can find that show, a transcript of this show, my contact information, and a bunch of other great stuff at QuickAndDirtyTips.com.



That’s all. Thanks for listening.









Irregardless



People think it means:

Regardless.



Actually means:

Not a damned thing.



This is not a word. Now, we have no problem with making up words (if a particular scent can only be described as “fartalicious,” we reserve the right to call it so). The problem with this one is “regardless” already means something isn’t worth regard (that’s why the “less” is there) so adding the “ir” to it means… it’s worth regarding again? Who knows.



Should you care?

If there’s ever a time to speak up, this is probably it.



Mainly because this is one of those words used almost exclusively by people trying to sound smarter than they are.   HAHAHA





Remind them that when using fake words to at least try to use ones that have some kind of meaning, if they want to avoid unnecessary c***ulance when speaking.

I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm



I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=gabe] [quote=LA Broker] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job. [/quote]

[quote=gabe] [quote=LA Broker] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job.

[quote=gabe]



Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don’t you ever read anything beyond the sports pages?







Let me guess.   



college prof?

IT geek?

DMV?



Classic dem wimp. The losers that got their butts kicked in school.

You hate free markets, because you cant compete.



the subprime melt down was a function of 2 main things;



1. Liberal ideals



"get as many people in homes as possible"



fannie   fdr

fredie   lbj



jimmys “enterprise zones”   

“mandatory” lending to low income people



bubba’s witch doctor loans

etc etc



2. the failure of regulation (government)



government sucks at everything

no different here

911 happened because the FBI and CIA failed



katrina FEMA



on and on



tax code

epa

ira

hud

social security

medicaid

medicare

fema

amtrack

cash for clunckers

etc etc



government sucks



free markets create wealth



retail salesmen?    ok if u like



I made 650 grand last year.    a horrible year.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Primo] [quote=gabe] [quote=LA Broker] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job. [/quote]

You made 650k? That’s great! (by The way, is that what you ‘produced’ or the money you made?)



unfortunately that doesn’t mean you know anything about economics. It just means you can sell. I get it that it’s better than selling at the mall, so you got that.

Primo,



glass steagall had nothing to do with subprime. I get it you guys are in sales but it’s a bit shocking how little you seem to know about economics and the financial world.



I provided a couple of links but there are many, many more. Anyone who at this stage thinks the CRA had anything to do with the crisis just doesn’t know what they are talking about.

You keep saying you guys in sales.  What exactly do you do?  Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links.

It’s a shame that the intelligent conversations are often interupted by the ramblings of a few individuals who are true embarrassments to the industry.

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=gabe]



Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don’t you ever read anything beyond the sports pages?







Let me guess.   



college prof?

IT geek?

DMV?



Classic dem wimp. The losers that got their butts kicked in school.

You hate free markets, because you cant compete.



the subprime melt down was a function of 2 main things;



1. Liberal ideals



"get as many people in homes as possible"



fannie   fdr

fredie   lbj



jimmys “enterprise zones”   

“mandatory” lending to low income people



bubba’s witch doctor loans

etc etc



2. the failure of regulation (government)



government sucks at everything

no different here

911 happened because the FBI and CIA failed



katrina FEMA



on and on



tax code

epa

ira

hud

social security

medicaid

medicare

fema

amtrack

cash for clunckers

etc etc



government sucks



free markets create wealth



retail salesmen?    ok if u like



I made 650 grand last year.    a horrible year.



[/quote]

Here’s something I’ve never understood about right wingers: the implication that any private sector company will always be better run than any public sector agency/state/city/municipality.  It’s this supposed “given” you guys always pull out.  Government sucks.  Business is great.  I don’t buy it.  Sure, government can be a bureaucracy, and there are certainly many well run private sector companies out there.  But, as any rational person who has worked for a wirehouse or anywhere in corporate America can attest, there are more than enough private sector train wrecks out there.  All you have to do is look at any recession to see just how many private sector companies fail miserably at what they do.  2008 showed us how many banks and mortgage companies are garbage.  2000 showed us how many tech companies were garbage. The S&L crisis… I could go on… the list is endless.  The fact of the matter is that both governments and private companies are run by human beings.  Human beings are not infallible.  Some municipal, city and state governments are run quite well.  It’s disingenuous and lazy to assume that government is always bad and private sector is always good.  It’s simply not the case.  As with anything, there is nuance.  But most idealogues don’t get that.  It doesn’t jibe with their lazy and narrow-minded thought process.

fact:humans are greedy



without incentive to better themselves, you get the DMV



next question?



Government should do the minimum functions to allow society to function



(please see T. Jefferson, 1776)





call the IRS, tell me how that call goes?



amtrack=chap 11



post office=chap 11



medicare=black hole of waste



EPA=see medicare above



medicaid=see medicare above



etc etc



subprime? govt failed (chris cox, barney frank, cris dodd etc etc)



s and l crisis?   govt failed



SOCIAL SECURITY STARTED OUT WITH A LITTLE IDEA THAT WAS TO BE VOLANTARY AND ABOUT 1% OF INCOME.   ITS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE THE WAY PEOPLE PAY FOR RETIREMENT



THIS IS WHAT GOVT DOES. IT GROWS.   LIKE CUDZU

AND NEVER STOPS

NEVER GETS SMALLER

GIVE AWAY CRAP CREATED BY POLITICIANS BUYING VOTES-PERIOD



free markets NEVER fail.   (see: A. Smith)

they ALWAYS do what they are suppose to do (humans ARE greedy)



supply side, trickle down, voodoo economics…whatever you choose to call it WORKS



cut taxes, cut regulation and red tape and let people (see above: greedy) work their magic i the free markets



the answer is a MAN WITH A JOB, not you give-away welfare crap



as Ronnie said in 1969     



"HELP THE FACTORY OWNER, YOU HELP THE FACTORY WORKER"



pelosi/reid 750 billion pork feast



give me a break, hey Gabe, have you read this MF thing?



govt “creating jobs”.   govt does’nt create anything



Russian govt created jobs, how did that turn out?



govt can MOVE tax dollars around.   take taxes from you and me and pay some guy in an orange suit to stand around “fixing” a road.



check out western europes markets since march, even THESE socialist pussies are capitialistic then we are since Obama nation took over.   



well gabe my friend, we wont have to worry about Obama nation much longer because he is DOA.   done.   see ya   drive safe and thanks for playing.



from 71% to 47%   



independents=gone     

moderates=gone

anti-bush repubs=gone



Jimmy Carter part 2



just like 1980

we will get another Ronnie and supply side will be BACK

[quote=gabe] You made 650k? That’s great! (by The way, is that what you ‘produced’ or the money you made?)



unfortunately that doesn’t mean you know anything about economics. It just means you can sell. I get it that it’s better than selling at the mall, so you got that.[/quote]



Well Gabe,

as horrible as the period starting with Jimmy Cayne’s conference call telling the troops that a few billion had disappeared from a couple of their hedge funds…this is BY FAR the period where my team and my self have added HUGE amounts of value to our clients. (just like 1987,1990,1998,2002).

This is where we guide people to NOT fall into the trap and the ultimate paradox (you “feel” the worst about stocks at the best buying periods) of investing that makes the MAJORITY of people fail at beating the risk free rate of return over time.

I have been a portfolio manager for about 20 years and have audited number for 14 years.   We have “produced” an incredible amount of value to our clients.

Ill save giving you the details because you will just call me a liar.   thats ok.



The average no-load genius (like you)is OUT of this market. (check Trim Tabs). Like ALWAYS the crowd has been very wrong.   Selling low and buying high.



its NEVER changes



So you and that pussy, holier the thou John Boggle can KMA.

Check the FACTS.



EVERY SINGLE POPULAR NO-LOAD (INDEX TOO)HAS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER RETURNS FOR THE ACTUAL INVESTOR (HIS/HER BUYS AND SELLS) THE THE TRUE RETURN OF THE FUND.



many HAVE NEGATIVE LONG TERM NUMBERS    



I sleep like a baby and Gabe, old buddy



…i don’t have to work anymore.



I have followed my own advice on saving and investing over the years.

[quote=NYCTrader]

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=gabe]



But, as any rational person who has worked for a wirehouse or anywhere in corporate America can attest, there are more than enough private sector train wrecks out there. All you have to do is look at any recession to see just how many private sector companies fail miserably at what they do. 2008 showed us how many banks and mortgage companies are garbage. 2000 showed us how many tech companies were garbage. The S&L crisis… I could go on… the list is endless. The fact of the matter is that both governments and private companies are run by human beings. Human beings are not infallible. Some municipal, city and state governments are run quite well. .[/quote]



NYC:   "how many private companies failed miserably…"



You hit the nail RIGHT on the head here and you don’t relize it.   this is EXACTLY why free markets work.   because competition weeds out the DEC, CC, CPQ etc etc and the strong survive and thus you get the best results humans can obtain.



Is it perfect… no.   but it is the best we humans can do.



karl marx sounds AWESOME on paper



and the save the whales types like gabe love it.    IT JUST DOES NOT WORK-PERIOD



HUMANS ARE GREEDY. FLAWED.    ITS REALITY.



GORDON GECKOS speech about “greed is good” is quoted a lot as portraying what wall street is all about



but you know what…and i guess it is sort of sad as a human being but that speech is correct.   It is the system that creates the most for the most number of people.



And it is sad that we are not more advanced to better help each other and share. Its is reality.



Just like MF war is reality. We are still blowing each other brains out.



At the end of the day, we are just human. flawed, original sin.



If you want the best results, human greed must be in the equation. (again, see A. smith and the invisible hand)



   

Shania is correct in almost everything he says on this topic.  Its scary to me that so many of you in the Financial industry are trying to protect Obama, when he could destroy you with some of what he stands for. Sharing the wealth, over spending, and raising tax’s will get us nowhere. Free markets have always worked by letting the successful prosper, and unsuccessful fail.

Democrats, and Republicans acting like democrats, is what got us into this mess. We will get a conservative president like Reagan if Obama keeps it up, as Shania has stated.

Shania you are wrong with the assumption of IT being pussy libs. Atleast in our case.

Out of 10 here in Nashville, 9 of us are conservative.  Most of us voted for for McCain, but hoped Obama would win. McCain would have been the last nail in the coffin for the GOP. With Obama and his extreme views, he is creating a huge backlash in our favor. He will be lame duck status by the end of next year. Some of the people he has surrounded himself with is threatening to our soverienty and freedom.

We need someone to stand up and be a clear leader. There is still not a clear winner in the GOP.

You keep saying you guys in sales. What exactly do you do? Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links.

Shania,



Great for you that you did so well. If you think about it it’s a testament to this country that someone who knows so little about how the economy works can do so well in the financial industry! I guess it’s proof that your job simply doesn’t require an understanding of things like subprime. Then again, why should it? As long as you can sell you will do fine.



And you voting Democrat or Republican is, of course, your choice. But what I find surprising is the sheer amount of basic mistakes people like you make about the financial crisis revolving around us. I’m not an FA (came across this board some time ago, when I was looking to hire one) so all I can say is great for you that you can do so well knowing so little!

Free markets have always worked by letting the successful prosper, and unsuccessful fail.


[/quote]
 
Apparently GW Bush and his free market capitalists did not agree with this statement.  Otherwise, they would have let these companies fail without government intervening and facilitating a bailout for the industry and a stimulus package for the economy.  Was this the right decision?  I don’t know.  But it’s pretty telling that the man who for two terms was a staunch backer of free markets and deregulation saw that our economy was so effed that he and his advisors completely abandoned these policies and did a 180. 

It’s easy to say this sht in theory, but in practice no government official (as GW Bush demonstrated) would have the balls to step back and watch as mega cap companies fail.  No way.  Letting Lehman fail was a total disaster.  Imagine if all those other banks were allowed to fail.  Freddie and Fannie?  My God, do you remember how bad it had gotten.  The system was broken.  It’s still broken.  But allowing all these companies to fail was not a viable solution.  Does it suck that we the taxpayer are responsible for bailing out these companies?  Yes.  Is it right?  No.  But what was the alternative?  The alternative was doing nothing and watching a complete effing meltdown of the world’s economy.  Allowing the market to regulate itself would have brought that on.  The irony is the only way to save the free market system was with government intervention.  Should it have come to this?  Absolutely not.   But it did.

Here’s what I would like an answer to: what should have been done?  It’s easy to sit here and criticize government policy, but Obama has inherited a complete clusterf**.  How should have he gone about fixing the problem?
 

[quote=Primo] You keep saying you guys in sales.  What exactly do you do?  Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links.[/quote]

The KEY problem (in my opinion) that started this mess is that practically everyone involved (bankers, lenders, buyers, investors) acted as if the prices of houses could never go down on a national scale. Once that happened the whole house came crashing down. It had nothing to do with CRA or Democrats or Republicans although it probably was exacerbated by a trust on markets that bordered on religious belief.

Feel the change ! Feel the change !

[quote=gabe] [quote=Primo] You keep saying you guys in sales. What exactly do you do? Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links.[/quote] The KEY problem (in my opinion) that started this mess is that practically everyone involved (bankers, lenders, buyers, investors) acted as if the prices of houses could never go down on a national scale. Once that happened the whole house came crashing down. It had nothing to do with CRA or Democrats or Republicans although it probably was exacerbated by a trust on markets that bordered on religious belief.

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=gabe]

Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don’t you ever read anything beyond the sports pages?



Let me guess.   

college prof?
IT geek?
DMV?

Classic dem wimp. The losers that got their butts kicked in school.
You hate free markets, because you cant compete.

the subprime melt down was a function of 2 main things;

1. Liberal ideals

“get as many people in homes as possible”

fannie   fdr
fredie   lbj

jimmys “enterprise zones”   
“mandatory” lending to low income people

bubba’s witch doctor loans
etc etc

2. the failure of regulation (government)

government sucks at everything
no different here
911 happened because the FBI and CIA failed

katrina FEMA

on and on

tax code
epa
ira
hud
social security
medicaid
medicare
fema
amtrack
cash for clunckers
etc etc

government sucks

free markets create wealth

retail salesmen?    ok if u like

I made 650 grand last year.    a horrible year.

[/quote]

Here’s something I’ve never understood about right wingers: the implication that any private sector company will always be better run than any public sector agency/state/city/municipality.  It’s this supposed “given” you guys always pull out.  Government sucks.  Business is great.  I don’t buy it.  Sure, government can be a bureaucracy, and there are certainly many well run private sector companies out there.  But, as any rational person who has worked for a wirehouse or anywhere in corporate America can attest, there are more than enough private sector train wrecks out there.  All you have to do is look at any recession to see just how many private sector companies fail miserably at what they do.  2008 showed us how many banks and mortgage companies are garbage.  2000 showed us how many tech companies were garbage. The S&L crisis… I could go on… the list is endless.  The fact of the matter is that both governments and private companies are run by human beings.  Human beings are not infallible.  Some municipal, city and state governments are run quite well.  It’s disingenuous and lazy to assume that government is always bad and private sector is always good.  It’s simply not the case.  As with anything, there is nuance.  But most idealogues don’t get that.  It doesn’t jibe with their lazy and narrow-minded thought process.

CRA had EVERYTHING to do with sub-prime crisis. It reduced standards for lending, making sure everybody was “entitled” to a home. This is a fact. Demand of homes went up, resulting in skyrocketing prices and Home improvement shows.



However, I believe Clinton was a good president. I also believe that GW was a good president.



As for salesmen. If you are not a salesman, how do you get clients? Do they magically appear? Have you done absolutely NOTHING to get clients?



Or do you work at a Fidelity call center?

[quote=Moraen] CRA had EVERYTHING to do with sub-prime crisis. It reduced standards for lending, making sure everybody was “entitled” to a home. This is a fact. Demand of homes went up, resulting in skyrocketing prices and Home improvement shows.



However, I believe Clinton was a good president. I also believe that GW was a good president.



As for salesmen. If you are not a salesman, how do you get clients? Do they magically appear? Have you done absolutely NOTHING to get clients?



Or do you work at a Fidelity call center?



[/quote]



No, CRA has NOTHING to do with the subprime crisis. All the CRA does is say to a bank that if you take deposits in neighborhood A you also need to lend in neighborhood A. it doesn’t say that you have to make zero percent down loans or that you can skip verification of income.



Also, about 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies, which are not even subject to CRA requirements.



How can you now know any if this? How can you make such basic mistakes, over and over?



As for retail clients, I don’t have any. I’m not an FA.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Primo] [quote=gabe] [quote=Primo] You keep saying you guys in sales.  What exactly do you do?  Since you disagree with me, please share the cause of our current economic climate in your own words without regurgitating links.[/quote] The KEY problem (in my opinion) that started this mess is that practically everyone involved (bankers, lenders, buyers, investors) acted as if the prices of houses could never go down on a national scale. Once that happened the whole house came crashing down. It had nothing to do with CRA or Democrats or Republicans although it probably was exacerbated by a trust on markets that bordered on religious belief. [/quote]

[quote=gabe] [quote=Moraen] CRA had EVERYTHING to do with sub-prime crisis. It reduced standards for lending, making sure everybody was “entitled” to a home. This is a fact. Demand of homes went up, resulting in skyrocketing prices and Home improvement shows.



However, I believe Clinton was a good president. I also believe that GW was a good president.



As for salesmen. If you are not a salesman, how do you get clients? Do they magically appear? Have you done absolutely NOTHING to get clients?



Or do you work at a Fidelity call center?



[/quote]



No, CRA has NOTHING to do with the subprime crisis. All the CRA does is say to a bank that if you take deposits in neighborhood A you also need to lend in neighborhood A. it doesn’t say that you have to make zero percent down loans or that you can skip verification of income.



Also, about 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies, which are not even subject to CRA requirements.



How can you now know any if this? How can you make such basic mistakes, over and over?



As for retail clients, I don’t have any. I’m not an FA.[/quote]



I’m not making a mistake. You however, continue to show that you can’t even make the smallest of connections. To think that those things are not connected is foolish.



A mortgage underwriter then?

[quote=Moraen] [quote=gabe] [quote=Moraen] CRA had EVERYTHING to do with sub-prime crisis. It reduced standards for lending, making sure everybody was “entitled” to a home. This is a fact. Demand of homes went up, resulting in skyrocketing prices and Home improvement shows.



However, I believe Clinton was a good president. I also believe that GW was a good president.



As for salesmen. If you are not a salesman, how do you get clients? Do they magically appear? Have you done absolutely NOTHING to get clients?



Or do you work at a Fidelity call center?



[/quote]



No, CRA has NOTHING to do with the subprime crisis. All the CRA does is say to a bank that if you take deposits in neighborhood A you also need to lend in neighborhood A. it doesn’t say that you have to make zero percent down loans or that you can skip verification of income.



Also, about 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies, which are not even subject to CRA requirements.



How can you now know any if this? How can you make such basic mistakes, over and over?



As for retail clients, I don’t have any. I’m not an FA.[/quote]



I’m not making a mistake. You however, continue to show that you can’t even make the smallest of connections. To think that those things are not connected is foolish.



A mortgage underwriter then? [/quote]



No, not a mortgage underwriter.



And yes, you are making a mistake. The subprime crisis is simply not related to the CRA. This has been studied quite extensively.



http://www.newamerica.net/blog/asset-building/2008/no-larry-cra-didn-t-cause-sub-prime-mess-3210



http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html



http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/11/comptroller_dismisses_claims_c.php



http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm



http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/what-was-a-subprime-loan-modeled-on/



http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_community_reinvestment_act_r.php





and there are plenty more.

Ah. All non-peer-reviewd journals.





How about the following articles?   You will have to pay for them, unless you are a subscriber:



A Tale of Three Markets - Engel and McCoy



The CRA Implications of Predatory Lending - Engel and McCoy



Reaching the Glass Usury Ceiling: Why State Ceilings and Federal Preemption Force Low-Income Borrowers into Subprime Mortgage Loans; Norton, Anne Balcer



Capital in Chaos: the Subprime Mortgage Crisis and the Social Capital Response; Brescia, Raymond H.



All from peer-reviewed journals and respected economists.



There are more. Unfortunately, these all use empirical evidence with the actual statistics IN the article, not some abstract journalistic pieces.



You might as well have posted a Malcolm Gladwell article.

Moraen,



Every one of the links I provided deals with the myth that CRA was behind the subprime crisis.



I just went to the first one you provided and it says NOTHING about CRA and the subprime. It would be impossible since it’s from 2005! And the second one is from 2002!



Did you just write down a bunch of unrelated stuff?

They are articles in peer-reviewed journals. Did you READ the articles? You shouldn’t even be able to unless you have a subscription, which I do.



Here are some more:



The Role of Congress in the Recession of 2008, D. Cotter



Subprime lending and the Community Reinvestment Act, K Park



Here is one supporting your theory:



CRA Lending and the Subprime Meltdown, E. Laderman



Also, if you look through some of the reader responses to your postings, you will note that they readers who dispute the articles validity, have very good counter-arguments.



You will not convince me that CRA did not pave the way for subprime lending. And I will not convince you of the contrary. Get a subscription to Heinonline and the Harvard Business Review.



They will have articles that will argue both sides. Although the people on my side mostly use a quantitative approach, and those on your side use a more qualitative approach. I will let you decide which one you prefer to use.

I did look at the first two articles. And neither says anything about how CRA supposedly caused the subprime crisis. So they are not relevant to the discussion at hand.





Forget the articles for a second and focus on the analytics. let’s just try to deal with some facts:



1) The CRA ONLY covers depositary institutions. About half of all subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies which are not regulated by CRA. Think of the Ameriquests of the world.



2) The purpose of CRA was to make sure that a bank that took deposits in a neighborhood also lent to that neighborhood. If a bank thought the risk of lending to that neighborhood was bad they could just move elsewhere.



3) The CRA says nothing and mandates nothing that would lead to providing loans with zero down payment. Or interest only loans. Nor did it say anywhere that the lenders had to assume that housing prices would always go up. All those mistakes are what led to the crisis and none came from the CRA. In fact, the CRA was all about long-term solid lending.





If you have an argument that supports your idea that CRA was behind the subprime mess, I’d love to read it. But the links you provided do not support your claim.

The CRA link is in the underwriting standards, once CRA forced changes in those, the mortgage brokers (not covered by the CRA) could sell into populations that otherwise would not have been profitable.

The CRA link is in the underwriting standards, once CRA forced changes in those, the mortgage brokers (not covered by the CRA) could sell into populations that otherwise would not have been profitable.

[quote=gabe] Shania,



I guess it’s proof that your job simply doesn’t require an understanding of things like subprime. Then again, why should it? As long as you can sell you will do fine.





[/quote]



gabe



You have said the same thing in every post.



brokers are salesmen.

brokers are under-educated.

you have a superior intellect and education then brokers



OK   I get it.



(and there is some truth in 1 and 2 above)



That is all you have brought to the table.



Nothing of any substance except a whining little bicth.



Your boring dude.



(You might want to find out where your anger/jealously/resentment towards brokers/salesmen comes from. Letting these feelings fester is not healthy)   

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=gabe] Shania,



I guess it’s proof that your job simply doesn’t require an understanding of things like subprime. Then again, why should it? As long as you can sell you will do fine.





[/quote]



gabe



You have said the same thing in every post.



brokers are salesmen.

brokers are under-educated.

you have a superior intellect and education then brokers



OK   I get it.



(and there is some truth in it)



That is all you have brought to the table.



Nothing of any substance except a whining little bicth.



Your boring dude.



(You might want to find out where your anger/jealously/resentment towards brokers/salesmen comes from. Letting these feelings fester is not healthy)   







[/quote]



It’s “you’re”, not ‘your’.



What I find surprising is not how little brokers know in general. That’s true of many professions. What I find surprising is how little they know about the financial world. I mean, you may be salesmen, but supposedly you ‘work in finance’. Yet you mix CRA and subprime as if they are one and the same. Surely some client has asked you what you think about the causes of the crisis, no? Is that what you tell them?

[quote=gabe] [quote=Shania Twain] [quote=gabe] Shania,



I guess it’s proof that your job simply doesn’t require an understanding of things like subprime. Then again, why should it? As long as you can sell you will do fine.





[/quote]



gabe



You have said the same thing in every post.



brokers are salesmen.

brokers are under-educated.

you have a superior intellect and education then brokers



OK   I get it.



(and there is some truth in it)



That is all you have brought to the table.



Nothing of any substance except a whining little bicth.



Your boring dude.



(You might want to find out where your anger/jealously/resentment towards brokers/salesmen comes from. Letting these feelings fester is not healthy)   







[/quote]





What I find surprising is not how little brokers know in general. That’s true of many professions. What I find surprising is how little they know about the financial world. I mean, you may be salesmen, but supposedly you ‘work in finance’. Yet you mix CRA and subprime as if they are one and the same. Surely some client has asked you what you think about the causes of the crisis, no? Is that what you tell them? [/quote]



ok   

so brokers are salemen?

and under eductated?



ur a clueless tool



im done

I don’t know if they are undereducated. Maybe they are perfectly educated for what the job requires.



And in the end it may not make one bit of difference to your job if you understand subprime or not. I may have had the wrong assumption that it did make a difference, but if you are as successful as you claim, I am clearly mistaken.



I know a lot of people in finance that have lost their jobs and some think they might try out ‘wealth management’. But it’s clear they are mistaken if they think the analytical skills they used in their previous jobs are transferrable, or even needed.

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.



The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages. Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.



The CRA was public policy that DROVE the market. To cast a blind eye that obvious econic fact and simply blame “the profit motive” is ludicrous.



It is equally ludicrious to blame Wall Street and investment banks when what they did was buy up the risky mortgages that became so prevelant in the market place.



Granted, no one intened to lose money, but, to lay blame on capitalism when the real source of the problem was government in the first place indicates to me a fundamental lack of economic understanding.









*****



At its core, CRA helps to overcome market failures in low-income communities. By

fostering competition among banks in serving low-income areas, CRA generates larger volumes

of lending from diverse sources, and adds liquidity to the market, decreasing the risk of each

bank’s loan. Encouraged by the law, banks and thrifts have developed expertise in serving low-

income communities, and they have created innovative products that meet the credit needs of

working families and low-income areas with manageable risks.



*****



At its core, CRA helps to overcome market failures in low-income communities. By

fostering competition among banks in serving low-income areas, CRA generates larger volumes

of lending from diverse sources, and adds liquidity to the market, decreasing the risk of each

bank’s loan. Encouraged by the law, banks and thrifts have developed expertise in serving low-

income communities, and they have created innovative products that meet the credit needs of

working families and low-income areas with manageable risks.



********



Why do you think subprime mortgages went from 1% of all mortgages issued to 12% within THREE years of the Clinton Administration adding new teeth to the CRA (in 1995)???



Maybe, just maybe, the subprime explosion occurred because, as professor Michael Barr says:



"By fostering competition among banks in serving low-income areas, CRA generates larger volumes

of lending from diverse sources, and adds liquidity to the market, decreasingaff the risk of each

bank’s loan. "



*****



Mr Pressman is way off base. I was a bank director when sub prime lending was forced on us by the CRA act. Where did we finally wind up dumping these liabilities (called credits on our balance sheet)? It was the start of the process that eventually led to the mess we have. Every story has a beginning, and the beginning of the sub prime mess is CRA!





********



"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s mortgage policies fueled the trend towards issuing risky loans. In 1995, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for purchasing mortgage bank securities which included loans to low income borrowers. This resulted in the agencies purchasing subprime securities. Subprime mortgage loan originations surged by a whopping 25 percent per year between 1994 and 2003, resulting in a nearly ten-fold increase in the volume of these loans in just nine years. As of November 2007 Fannie Mae a held a total of $55.9 billion of subprime securities and $324.7 billion of Alt-A securities in their portfolios. As of the 2008Q2 Freddie Mac had $190 billion in Alt-A mortgages. Together they have more than half of the $1 trillion of Alt-A mortgages.[82] The growth in the subprime mortgage market, which included B, C and D paper bought by private investors such as hedge funds, fed a housing bubble that later burst."



See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/10/GR2008061000059.html



and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Government_Policies



Note this was all related to Mr. Clinton’s ingenious changes to the CRA in 1995.



I suggest Mr. Pressman try doing a little research before he writes.





******



Are you kidding? Bear would have never been able to create the first securitization of subprime paper in 1997 if it had not been for the revisions to the CRA that allowed it. That was the nexus of the problem. Sure other stimuli contributed to exacerbate the problem but to obscure the affect of legislation that served a single goal at the great expense of systemic protection we learn nothing.



********



CRA enforcement changed under the Financial Modernization Act, which also allowed the securitization of loans. However, check the above links carefully. Especially compare the Treasury Department FMA CRA impact baseline report:

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/crareport.pdf

and

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclos…

In 1993 CRA covered institutions made 65% of all LMI (Low and Moderate Income) loans in the country. In 1998 CRA institutes made 63% of LMI loans. You may remember, no subprime leanding crisis during those years. By 2006, CRA institutions made only 22.7% of LMI loans. Also in 2006, CRA institutions only made 11.7% of all LMI and high cost loans (subprime loans). Guess what we had in 2006? That’s right a subprime mortgage crisis. As noted in both the above studies. CRA institutions are much more likely to make loans to credit worthy borrowers and that the growth in high cost loans (subprime) loans is almost exclusively due to non-CRA institutions.



*********



Scroll down to the graph named “Primed for Disaster” and look what happens in the mid-90’s. It was used in reference of bank deregulation, but it is very pertinent here because sub-prime lending began before the 1999 bank deregulation. Almost nobody gave sub-prime loans until shortly after Clinton’s regulatory changes. You quote 65% for 1993, but 65% of nothing is still nothing. You’ll notice too that the largest spikes percentage-wise were not after Bush announced the loosening of regulatory requirements in 2004 or Gramm’s inclusion of protections in the 1999 deregulation which took effect in 2000. In fact the sub-prime lending rate leveled off or went down with the protections.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4485795#4486280. It’s not like somebody just thought of the sub-prime idea in the mid-90’s. It had been around for centuries. Nobody did it though, because nobody was effectively forced to until the mid-90’s.

You (as well as Traiger Law) also seem to completely ignore the fact that while CRA-covered institutions were not making (originating) a high percentage of these loans by the late 2000’s, they are effectively buying them from non-CRA-covered mortgage companies (or community groups like Acorn) to satisfy their requirement for CRA credits. This creates a market for the non-CRA-covered companies to sell sub-primes to the covered institutions and encourages more sub-prime loan origination. This is noted in Section II Sub-section B of the following: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1862983/The-CRA-implications-of-predatory.html. The idea that requiring lending institutions to lend responsibly, but they had better lend or else is like telling your 15 year old boy to go mow the lawn, but you had better not get dirty. It’s a fallacious paradigm.

You also seem to completely downplay the regulatory changes in support of the CRA that allowed the securitization of loans. Institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were directed by the Clinton administration to hold more and more loans with less requirement for capital reserves to back them up. As we all know, Fannie and Freddie were among the first to hit the bricks and they bought and owned much of the CRA debt.

I know you didn’t address this, but the authors use of the Fed study on profitability, a nearly 10 year old study (using 1999 data) that was compiled barely after sub-primes really hit the market, much less had a chance to default, is questionable if not completely irrelevant in 2008. There had been no upward adjustment of interest rates, no time for bubble creating or bursting, nothing like that. I suspect that the same study done today would have vastly different results.

The article also fails to realize that many of these sub-prime loans were not just ARMS, but 5 to 10-year interest only loans. This type of loan was introduced in 2000 and by 2005 were close to 30% of the market. These loans would have started to mature to interest+ loans, let’s see…right about a year or two ago. I’ve seen many say that the timing is off since the CRA took effect over 30 years ago. These people almost invariably gloss over the regulatory changes made in the 90’s. Those changes are the crux of the matter.

Now, having said that, I think the CRA was noble and well-intentioned and does have a place in today’s society. Not in it’s current form though. It has to focus on incrementally building credit for those it serves to the point where they have sufficient credit worthiness to make large loans (like home loans) a viable option (in the prime market). After all of the sub-prime lending it has spawned and the pending financial catastrophe that it is causing the economy as a whole, it still has only raised black home ownership from 42% in 1970 to 47.2% more than 37 years later. Of course in 2009 and 2010 that might be lower due to all of the bad mortgages, foreclosures, and bankruptcies that are on the books. Due to the injection of stricter requirements by the Clinton administration and refusal of Congress in 2003 and 2005 to supervise Fannie and Freddie in more stringent fashion, the CRA is now hurting the people it was supposed to protect.

The 1970’s CRA did not cause this. The 1990’s CRA, while not responsible for the whole mess, is definitely a large part and the core of it.



**********



The fact that the crisis occurred five or six years later illustrates the opposite of the point you make. The subprime crisis didn’t happen as a result of bad loans that were originated in 2006. They came as a result of cumulative bad loans originated years before, that had pushed the aggregate prices higher and since the price rise was unsustainable, the underlying assets of the loans (the property) was devalued to a more sustainable level based on sustainable demand. This is what caused the subprime crisis: derivative implosion. One thing that led to this implosion was an unsustainable buying frenzy. One thing that led to this buying frenzy was easy money policy at the Fed, and another thing that led to it was easy qualification made possible by the combination of the CRA and the implicit gov’t guarantee of Fannie/Freddie.

It takes a few years to correct a market distorted by poorly conceived legislation. Just look at the rise in home prices before 77 and after 77. If you create more demand (i.e. expanding the market to buyers who were previously unable to buy because of bad credit/low income/etc.), you see less supply. If there is less supply, people step in to increase that supply to meet the demand(i.e. building/flipping houses). This will eventually equalize, as is obvious to anyone who has the most basic understanding of economics. If, however, that increased demand is unsustainable because it is coming from people who cannot pay (it was) then as soon as they start defaulting, the market will implode.

To say the CRA caused the subprime crisis is only incorrect because there were other factors. To say the the CRA was bad legislation that helped us down the path we were on is totally correct. Subsidized/affordable housing legislation of any kind increases demand and pushes prices up, which makes it even harder to purchase for people who were having a hard time already. This kind of legislation is intervening and meddlesome, and is enacted by people who just don’t get it.



********



Every one of the articles I posted mention CRA and point to it as the cause of the sub-prime crisis. They may or may not be using it as the primary premise of the article, but they are contained within.



Those are peer-reviewed.



What I just posted are opinion pieces that come from your links. Please provide a link that shows statistics about how CRA did NOT cause the sub-prime crisis.



No one is saying that CRA and the sub-prime crisis are one in the same. No one is saying it is the only thing. But CRA did start us on the road to the sub-prime crisis.



Simple fact. For you not to make those connections shows a lack of understanding of economics and how things work. Everything is connected to incentives. CRA provided the framework for the sub-prime crisis to occur by relaxing lending standards.



Basic game theory: If your competitor MIGHT lend to people who MAY not have qualified under the old rules, what do you do? The Nash equilibrium is to go ahead and lend to those people before your competitor can.



Just the way it is.

Moraen,



Once again, nothing on the CRA required or even promoted lending with 0% down, or without any verification of income. And that’s what drove this crisis (at least at the beginning, since then it has expanded).



If you look at the parts of the country most affected by the mortgage crisis (Las Vegas, Southern CA, FL) you see that poor neighborhoods are not the problem. The problem is that the value of homes collapsed and, guess what, they didn’t collapse in poor neighborhoods because they never rose too much there.



And nothing in the CRA forced investors to buy CDOs or other securitizations.

Meanwhile, I’ve got a bigger problem.



My son, who still believes in Santa, wonders why Santa discriminates against the poor. After all if Santa gives presents to all but we explain how poor children suffer this time of year, then it must be the red one’s fault!



Maybe Santa needs a CRA of his own.

gabe - you are ignoring the fact that it doesn’t matter that CRA did not force those things. It paved the way for it to happen though.



Let me ask you something. Let’s say you have to lend to 20 low-income families to meet your quota as a mortgage broker. You have 19 of them and have verified their income.   You will get fired if you do not get that last loan. You can get that person a loan if you do NOT verify their income. They also have sub-prime credit, but you can get them a loan because the banks have relaxed the standards in order to insure that their competitors don’t get more business. What do you do? Do you lend the money? Keep in mind that you are only the broker and you don’t care what happens afterwards.



You make the loan, do NOT verify income and thus the person gets their dream home. The adjustable rate that you sold them is going to screw them in the long run, especially when the primary wage earner loses his job.



I know though. You are NOT a salesman, so you wouldn’t have to worry about it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6

[quote=gabe] [quote=LA Broker] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job. [/quote]

Meanwhile, I’ve got a bigger problem.

My son, who still believes in Santa, wonders why Santa discriminates against the poor. After all if Santa gives presents to all but we explain how poor children suffer this time of year, then it must be the red one’s fault!

Maybe Santa needs a CRA of his own.

[quote=gabe] Meanwhile, I’ve got a bigger problem.



My son, who still believes in Santa, wonders why Santa discriminates against the poor. After all if Santa gives presents to all but we explain how poor children suffer this time of year, then it must be the red one’s fault!



Maybe Santa needs a CRA of his own.[/quote]



I guess that’s why Santa invented the Marine Corps Reserve. Most think it was God.

[quote=Moraen] [quote=gabe] Meanwhile, I’ve got a bigger problem.



My son, who still believes in Santa, wonders why Santa discriminates against the poor. After all if Santa gives presents to all but we explain how poor children suffer this time of year, then it must be the red one’s fault!



Maybe Santa needs a CRA of his own.[/quote]



[/quote]



Want less poor kids?    



Make is easier for their dads and moms to get a job.



That is the answer.



cut taxes, cut govt, cut red tape.



Free market create wealth. period



govt destroys.



the WORST thing that ever happened to low income people was johnson/kennedy wealth transfer give-a-ways.

[quote=Primo] http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama and his economic team lashed out at Wall Street, with the president calling bankers “fat cats” who “don’t get it,” in a move that could escalate tensions with the nation’s biggest bankers ahead of a meeting with industry representatives.



Mr. Obama, speaking on the eve of Monday’s meeting with the heads of top banks at the White House, said he would try to persuade bankers to free up more credit to businesses, with the aim of helping boost job growth. But the president also expressed frustration with banks that the government has assisted.



“I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” Mr. Obama said in an interview to be broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes” program Sunday evening, according to excerpts made available ahead of the program.



Mr. president,



Didnt you just rail on banks for lending money to people who could’nt afford it?

Wasnt this irresponsible lending your reason for the meltdown?



Now your whining and wanting to force banks to lend more?

[quote=gabe] [quote=Primo] http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6

A blog, yes, but one with plenty of data. Rather than repeat what others say, I’ll provide links:



http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/





Here’s a key point:





"I spent a year of my life researching and writing in painstaking details what the actual causes of the crisis were. I put together all of the moving parts as to what the actual causes were — and wrote them up in Bailout Nation, to wit: Irresponsibly ultra-low rates that led to a huge housing boom; a failure by the Fed to supervise non-bank lenders; An abdication of lending standards by both banks and non-banks; Radical deregulation of financial markets; the now discredited belief that markets can self-regulate; a shadow derivative market allowed to operate unlike every other financial product; Compensation schemes that rewarded short term risk taking over long term profitibility; Increases in leverage to the major investment houses from 12-to-1 to 35-to-1; These were the causes of the collapse — not some 1977 legislation."



Those were the causes of the crisis, not the CRA.

[quote=Moraen]



Btw - Housing prices were artificially inflated BECAUSE of the availability of credit, for which the door was opened by the changed to CRA that Clinton signed into law. [/quote]



Yes, availability of credit. But not due to CRA. Due to low rates plus a belief in the market that housing prices simply could not fall.



CRA did not mandate, require, or even promote zero down lending, no income verification, inflated ratings, investors who didn’t due their homework, unwillingness to regulate derivatives, or super low interest rates.

[quote=gabe] A blog, yes, but one with plenty of data. Rather than repeat what others say, I’ll provide links:



http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/





Here’s a key point:





"I spent a year of my life researching and writing in painstaking details what the actual causes of the crisis were. I put together all of the moving parts as to what the actual causes were — and wrote them up in Bailout Nation, to wit: Irresponsibly ultra-low rates that led to a huge housing boom; a failure by the Fed to supervise non-bank lenders; An abdication of lending standards by both banks and non-banks; Radical deregulation of financial markets; the now discredited belief that markets can self-regulate; a shadow derivative market allowed to operate unlike every other financial product; Compensation schemes that rewarded short term risk taking over long term profitibility; Increases in leverage to the major investment houses from 12-to-1 to 35-to-1; These were the causes of the collapse — not some 1977 legislation."



Those were the causes of the crisis, not the CRA.



[/quote]



Provide a link to the research in the form of a paper that was published in a peer-reviewed journal.



CRA paved the way simply due to economic conditions. I’ll say again. Basic game theory. Provide a counter-argument that is effective.

[quote=Moraen]



CRA paved the way simply due to economic conditions. I’ll say again. Basic game theory. Provide a counter-argument that is effective.[/quote]



Basic game theory? The problem with the crisis is that people got interest-only mortgages they couldn’t pay once principal was due. This has nothing to do with the CRA. The CRA never mandated or encouraged making loans to people who only could pay them if housing prices kept rising. Remember, the CRA applies to poor neighborhoods. And there was no property bubble in those neighborhoods.

To quote myself:



Basic game theory: If your competitor MIGHT lend to people who MAY not have qualified under the old rules, what do you do? The Nash equilibrium is to go ahead and lend to those people before your competitor can.



CRA opened the door.



Once again, 6% of all HIGH priced sub-prime loans were CRA. In what world does that make sense. Even 1% of all HIGH priced loans is too many. There should have been none. If 6% of all high-priced loans were CRA, how many of middle and low were there?

gabe -



From Stan Leibowitz - an actual Economist and economics professor.



http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf

The people who were pushing for the changes in the CRA in the nineties were crowing about how the changes would make loans more available to lower-income people.

And there is President Barry again, taking a cheap shot at Bush on 60 minutes saying W approached war incorrectly by taking a “lets kick butt approach.” What approach should we take you ass hole, a “well I hope we win”  approach ?

[quote=Moraen] gabe -



From Stan Leibowitz - an actual Economist and economics professor.



http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf[/quote]



Thanks for the link. I need to read it fully but I don’t see much where I disagree. From what I see he doesn’t even mention the CRA and focuses on the use of adjustable mortgages as a main culprit. Fully agree.

gabe - here is some help. Page 7.



Also, you can read his NY Post article:



http://www.nypost.com/seven/09242008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/house_of_cards_130479.htm

[quote=Ron 14] And there is President Barry again, taking a cheap shot at Bush on 60 minutes saying W approached war incorrectly by taking a “lets kick butt approach.” What approach should we take you ass hole, a “well I hope we win” approach ?

OK. But please note that this is not a ‘peer reviewed’ article. It’s just this guys opinion. In the article CRA does not appear as a major cause, at best it may be seen as the first step towards what eventually happened.



The problem when coming up with ‘reasons’ why X happened is that you need some way to weight each of them. If I list 20 reasons but one is 95% responsible for what happened, then maybe the other 19 are not reasons at all. One way to think of this is to ask, if the CRA had never existed, would the crisis have still happened? The available evidence is yes. So long as rates were low enough for a long time, and so long as financial innovation and financial engineering led many investors and bankers to think risk had disappeared, this was bound to happen.



In fact, one could argue there are even deeper reasons. Spain had an even bigger housing bust and they had neither CRAs nor CDOs. There are other countries like the UK, or Ireland that had similar experiences. Or, for an even greater example look at Iceland and the Baltics.



What all these countries had in common with the US was an explosion of availability of cheap credit and a willingness by lenders to provide it to almost anyone without worrying if they could pay back. In all cases the underlying assumption was that home prices would only go up.



Something that happens at the same time in Spain, the UK, Ireland, the Baltics, Iceland, and the US (and I’m probably missing several others) is clearly something that has a common explanation. And it’s not CRA.



And if you look at Latin America, which has many CRA-type laws, you see none of the countries there had any crisis. The reason? Credit was never so cheap or so freely available. THAT is the key explanation, the sheer amount of credit offered in many of these countries.

Gabe, you keep saying you are an analyst.  As in keep the Buy rating on a company until they are down 70% then go to a hold until they are down 90% then slap a sell rating on it?  One of those clowns?  It is because we are salesman and work in the real world we understand how things happen.  For every link you provide saying CRA had nothing to do with anything, we can post a link saying it does.  At the end of the day it comes down to one’s opinion.  Your refusal to admit that the CRA played a part in this simply shows your own bias.

I never said it was peer-reviewed. But you seem to think that non-peer-reviewed articles have credence. His article is at least a step above a blog.



Like I said, I can present as many arguments as I want. I can show empirical evidence and you still will not agree.



The issue has become an ideological one, given that those with a more liberal mindset refuse to believe that CRA caused the crisis, while conservatives refuse to believe that it wasn’t.



But, there are more peer-reviewed articles in favor of CRA being the cause than not. Krugman tried to get his garbage in the Journal of Economics and business and was told to go fly a kite because his numbers were manipulated. Even Berkeley told him to go fly a kite. As for your your buddy Ritholz - he has been published in a few Law journals, but nothing related to the crisis by a peer-reviewed journal.



Sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree.

[quote=gabe]

And if you look at latin America, which has many CRA-type laws, you see none of the countries there had any crisis. The reason? Credit was never so cheap or so freely available. THAT is the key explanation, the sheer amount of credit offered in many of these countries. [/quote]



As the U.S. goes, so goes the world.

Gabe, you keep saying you are an analyst. As in keep the Buy rating on a company until they are down 70% then go to a hold until they are down 90% then slap a sell rating on it? One of those clowns? It is because we are salesman and work in the real world we understand how things happen. For every link you provide saying CRA had nothing to do with anything, we can post a link saying it does. At the end of the day it comes down to one’s opinion. Your refusal to admit that the CRA played a part in this simply shows your own bias.

[quote=Moraen] [quote=gabe]

And if you look at Latin America, which has many CRA-type laws, you see none of the countries there had any crisis. The reason? Credit was never so cheap or so freely available. THAT is the key explanation, the sheer amount of credit offered in many of these countries. [/quote]



As the U.S. goes, so goes the world.[/quote]



Hardly. Latin America’s financial systems turned out to be much stronger than that of the US this time around.

Yes, diversity of markets is great.



What are the CRA-related laws in those countries?

CRA allowed the money to be lent.

[quote=Primo] Gabe, you keep saying you are an analyst.  As in keep the Buy rating on a company until they are down 70% then go to a hold until they are down 90% then slap a sell rating on it?  One of those clowns?  It is because we are salesman and work in the real world we understand how things happen.  For every link you provide saying CRA had nothing to do with anything, we can post a link saying it does.  At the end of the day it comes down to one’s opinion.  Your refusal to admit that the CRA played a part in this simply shows your own bias. [/quote]

To say ‘it played a part’ is very, very different than to say ‘it was the cause’. I have not said it was THE cause, I have repeated over and over it is part of the problem.  You have said it had “nothing” to do with it.  That is patently false.  We can argue to what degree all day, that the CRA was a factor is not in dispute.

Yes, there was clearly a process by which lending standards weakened over the years. Very true. But CRA was, at best, a small part of that.

But what happened in the US was a huge crisis, and simply talking about weakened standards does not explain it. What DOES explain it is the drop in housing prices.  Without derivatives, it would not be a crisis of such magnatude.  Cheap money led to the real estate bubble, here and abroad.  The derivitaves and leverage used threatened the system.  The US is primarily responsible for the derivatives, made possible by  Gramm-Leach-Billey which was passed only after the Democrats negotiated a strengthening of the CRA (I’ll agree to your bad idea if you agree to my bad idea.) And this happened in several countries in the world at the same time, and most had nothing like CRA.  Only if you look at the first layer, however if you peel the onion, you would realize the a law passed here can have effects worldwide, even in places the law does not apply.
The fact that you can post a lot of links doesn’t mean they make sense. (Same for me). What you need is an analytically consistent rationale.

As an analyst, I’m always confronted with situation that have no clear ‘answer’ or ‘explanation’. And I have to try to keep my political preferences at bay. You can’t look at what happened in the world in the last two years, a crisis that replicated very similarly in severa pretty different countries, and try to explain it by one law from one country from 30 years ago. Even if that law started a process it’s clear that something that affects Spain and the US and Latvia all at the same time and in the same way is something bigger than the CRA.

And finally, let’s not forget how this started. My point was that the empirical evidence is pretty strong that the economy and the markets tend to do better under Dem administrations. Not sure why. But anyone interested in seeing the stock market rise should not automatically support Republicans.

An interesting post, somewhat related:



http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/12/13/how-smaller-banks-would-have-helped-shrink-the-cdo-market/





Notice how even in the US market what fueled the bubble was money from abroad. European banks buying US CDOs (and ultimately US mortgages), and they probably never even heard of the CRA.   

it wont matter soon. This from the European Union Times



http://www.eutimes.net/2009/11/obama-orders-1-million-us-troops-to-prepare-for-civil-war/

follow article from the eutimes



U.S. Forces Plan Direct Action Against American Citizens

Posted by Europe on Dec 11, 2009 | 64 Comments





“There is an event coming in the very near-term future that is going to effect the USA to its very soul,” former Kansas State Trooper Greg Everson of The Heartland USA and former host of Republic Broadcasting “Voices from the Heartland” told host Steve Quayle in a special two hour “Survive 2 Thrive” broadcast Thursday.



“What is being planned and what is coming together is a perfect storm brewing right over our heads.” Everson cited verifiable information confirmed by an active duty US Air Force Colonel, three chiefs of Police, a local Sheriff, State Troopers in 3 neighboring Midwest states and a Federal agent he has known for twenty years.







“There is being made an effort to bring together the Armed Forces of this Nation in preparation for responding to and acting against the interests of our Citizens,” Everson said. Such efforts include actions that will be so deep and penetrating that the United States will never be the same. Everson explained that the deteriorating economy combined with Federal Reserve theft of trillions unaccounted for has had a devastating effect on Americans who had have enough and the US Military expects will respond by defending what little they have left.



“The American people have reached the point of total saturation due to the failure of Government to protect its borders, corruption and theft.” Everson expects that such a response has been projected by US Government computer models and believes NORTHCOM, DHS and state and local authorities will begin implementation of Operation Garden Plot and Martial Law within 45-60 days. “Civil war is precisely what this administration wants to happen,” said Everson. “And before Americans can organize themselves they will be destroyed by their own military.”



The first signs of pacification by our own forces will not only be convoys rolling through city streets and small towns throughout the Country, but direct military action against pre-targeted areas. Data acquired in the past year by “Census workers” has been used to program military targeting computers which our own armed forces will use in the unthinkable task of fighting its own citizenry.



“It is a formula for unmitigated disaster regardless of Copenhagen, Health Care reform or anything coming from Capitol Hill,” Everson said. Steve Quayle noted his own sources who say as many as 50 million Americans are likely to be killed with gun owners, veterans and the more visible dissenters the most likely targets of deadly force. More “liberal” areas that pose minimal resistance would likely be pacified using lesser means.



One of Everson’s’ sources was quoted as having said “We have plans that if it gets bad enough we will simply commence yard farming,” (a military reference for targeted air strikes) on neighborhoods and communities in cities and states where heavy resistance is expected. A tactic designed to destroy both the enemy and the area(s) under and around the enemy. Everson suggests such horrifying events could possibly coincide with an invasion by the Chinese from the west and Mexico from the south. In any case, military, law enforcement and civilian casualties could be enormous.



During the two hour broadcast Quayle received an e-mail message from an undisclosed US Military source that a last minute, unscheduled meeting of Saturday December 5 has been called for all unit commanders in the region to present readiness status reports. States in the Region include Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois and Tennessee.

[quote=tdude] it wont matter soon. This from the European Union Times



http://www.eutimes.net/2009/11/obama-orders-1-million-us-troops-to-prepare-for-civil-war/[/quote]



i love smell of loonies in the morning.

I slogged through all ten pages of this debate, which went from a debate about how lousy a president Obama is (I’d agree he’s looking pretty poor at this stage in the game) to a debate about whether or not CRA played a role in the current crisis.  I happen to side on the side that says it definitely played a role in the mortgage crisis.  Even Gabe has moved from saying it had nothing to do with the crisis to it played a minor role in the crisis.  Here’s some additional perspective from someone who played bank compliance auditor for a few years back in the 90’s when CRA got teeth.

[quote=Indyone] I slogged through all ten pages of this debate, which went from a debate about how lousy a president Obama is (I’d agree he’s looking pretty poor at this stage in the game) to a debate about whether or not CRA played a role in the current crisis. I happen to side on the side that says it definitely played a role in the mortgage crisis. Even Gabe has moved from saying it had nothing to do with the crisis to it played a minor role in the crisis. Here’s some additional perspective from someone who played bank compliance auditor for a few years back in the 90’s when CRA got teeth.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Primo]



And I have to try to keep my political preferences at bay.



[/quote]



dude.    you are in such denial.



you make keith Oberlmen and ann coulter look objective.



your whining lib agenda oozes from every sentence you write



keep my political preferences at bay…stop, your killing me.



I’m just so excited that you have stayed to talk with us uneducated salesmen.



(BTW - as brilliant as you claim to be Mr Friedman, so far I truly am underinpressed with any of your uber-educated insights.   Many of these semi-retarded salesmen have buried your arrogant little ass)

Shania,



you should be grateful. You get to tell the world you ‘work in finance’ but you don’t really need to know much about it, just sell, sell, sell. Same analytical requirement as working at the mall but much better payout!

Indy,



you are just telling me what you ‘believe’ but you provide no evidence.



I agree that the CRA is part of a general process from all parties that pushes, probably more than is convenient, for home ownership. Although if that’s your worry the tax treatment of mortgage interest is a much bigger issue. But nobody here has provided any data whatsoever supporting the idea that that led to lower underwriting standards. And that’s something that is easy to measure. Banks keep close track of what they charge and what the default rates are. If the risk/return balance is bad, where’s the evidence?



More importantly, neither you nor anyone else has provided much to support the idea that the CRA is behind the subprime crisis. You’d need to explain how a law from 1977 only managed to have an Impact 30 years later.



The reality is much simpler. The subprime crisis hit many different parts of the world at the same time. There’s a common cause. And it ain’t CRA.



Finally, this whole post started when Shania ignorantly revealed he has no clue that Democrats in the White House have a better economic track record than Republicans. (God bless his ignorant retail-selling heart! ) And that remains true, no matter what you think about the CRA.

Yes, the stock market performs better on average and so does the economy under Democratic presidents.  However, there is a delay between when legislation is enacted and when it takes effect.

Someone said this before.  Do you think that the recession of 2000-2002 was caused by George W. Bush (I have an Army buddy who thinks this)?

Do you think that Bill Clinton is responsible for the recovery in the early nineties?

The recovery then started WELL before Bill Clinton was elected.

As for CRA.  You have only provided articles written by journalists or “experts” with associate’s degrees in political science.  Like I said, I would have responded better to Krugman’s blog.  The law in 1977 was strengthened in the nineties by Bill Clinton.  We can provide just as many articles in response.

Seriously, look at Berkeley’s Economic Journal, or the Journal of Economics and Business, or the International Economic Journal.  All of these will even have some of your sides papers.  Only they are qualitative, not quantitative like the the papers that my side has written.

You are an analyst.  I find it difficult to believe with your analyst’s training (CFA?) that you would post ANYTHING qualitative.

In addition, you should have a decent background in economics and my comment about how CRA caused the companies who had the ability to lend to make the bad loans should make sense to you.

I will try again.

Let’s assume for a minute that there are only two companies that lend money for mortgages.

Company A and Company B are doing about the same amount of business and have about the same amount of profit.

CRA is strengthened and both Company A and Company B are required to comply with CRA.  Now, they don’t have to make the loans, but they could makes some money off of this if they use adjustable rates, interest-only loans and a number of others. 

Now, there are four possible outcomes to this scenario. 

1)  Both companies decide that they will not participate in the sub-prime scheme and so no sub-prime loans are given.  Thus, no bad loans get packaged and re-packaged and sold.  (although how will they comply with certain provisions of CRA).

2)  Company A decides it doesn’t want to take the chance that Company B will lend, so they start offering the loans.  Company B does not and thus loses profit.  Analysts downgrade them, so on and so forth.

3)  Reversal of number 2.

4)  Both companies, fearing the other will gain a competitive advantage, offer the sub-prime loans.

What is the Nash equilibrium in this case, gabe?

Obviously it is a lot more complicated than this, but this is the basic way it worked out.

Once the bad loans were made, they were repackaged and sold anew on an international scale, resulting in a global recession with the exception of a few stalwart countries.

Indy,

you are just telling me what you ‘believe’ but you provide no evidence.

I agree that the CRA is part of a general process from all parties that pushes, probably more than is convenient, for home ownership. Although if that’s your worry the tax treatment of mortgage interest is a much bigger issue. But nobody here has provided any data whatsoever supporting the idea that that led to lower underwriting standards. And that’s something that is easy to measure. Banks keep close track of what they charge and what the default rates are. If the risk/return balance is bad, where’s the evidence?

More importantly, neither you nor anyone else has provided much to support the idea that the CRA is behind the subprime crisis. You’d need to explain how a law from 1977 only managed to have an Impact 30 years later.

The reality is much simpler. The subprime crisis hit many different parts of the world at the same time. There’s a common cause. And it ain’t CRA.

Finally, this whole post started when Shania ignorantly revealed he has no clue that Democrats in the White House have a better economic track record than Republicans. (God bless his ignorant retail-selling heart! ) And that remains true, no matter what you think about the CRA.

I’m a mall cop on the weekends. It’s so fullfilling

I’m a mall cop on the weekends.  It’s so fullfilling

Segways.  Way cool.

Gabe,

The Gallup poll released today finds President Barack Obama’s poll numbers at their lowest levels yet.   An overall approval rating of 44%. According to the survey, "Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s the lowest level yet measured for this president.

[quote=Shania Twain]The Gallup poll released today finds President Barack Obama’s poll numbers at their lowest levels yet.   An overall approval rating of 44%. According to the survey, "Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s the lowest level yet measured for this president.

[quote=Indyone]I slogged through all ten pages of this debate…Cause and effect, law of unintended consequences, call it what you want, but CRA played a part, and in my opinion, a big part.[/quote]

I believe Watters vs. Wachovia Bank was a bigger contributor than CRA.

It said states could not intervene in sub-prime lending even when they knew it was predatory, and even when they knew an unsustainable bubble was building.

Federal government and federal policy trumped any states rights. Banking influence in Washington trumped common sense at the local level. It trumped the best interest of the American public.

What’s ironic is that Wachovia went to the supreme court to fight for the cause which would eventually bankrupt them.

dont change the subject nyc



get long



come from the dark side.



pull up a weekly on SPX



sept-oct 08 gap.    1250ish soon and quick



the force with u brother.



come on over.



LukeSkywalkerESBV3Wallpaper.jpg800×600

[quote=Indyone]I slogged through all ten pages of this
debate…Cause and effect, law of unintended consequences, call
it what you want, but CRA played a part, and in my opinion, a big
part.[/quote]

I believe Watters vs. Wachovia Bank was a bigger contributor than CRA.

It
said states could not intervene in sub-prime lending even when they
knew it was predatory, and even when they knew an unsustainable bubble
was building.

Federal government and federal policy trumped
any states rights. Banking influence in Washington trumped common sense
at the local level. It trumped the best interest of the American
public.

What’s ironic is that Wachovia went to the supreme court to fight for the cause which would eventually bankrupt them.

[quote=NYCTrader]



You sound like a Fox News hack.



[/quote]



independents expected bubba

moderation and middle of the road



same with frustrated GOP anti-iraq bush haters



this dude has gone way way way too left.

the damage is done.



plus sadly, usa has tons of closet racism

took a perfect storm for him to win



its over.

[quote=Still@jones][quote=Indyone]I slogged through all ten pages of this
debate…Cause and effect, law of unintended consequences, call
it what you want, but CRA played a part, and in my opinion, a big
part.[/quote]

I believe Watters vs. Wachovia Bank was a bigger contributor than CRA.

It
said states could not intervene in sub-prime lending even when they
knew it was predatory, and even when they knew an unsustainable bubble
was building.

Federal government and federal policy trumped
any states rights. Banking influence in Washington trumped common sense
at the local level. It trumped the best interest of the American
public.

What’s ironic is that Wachovia went to the supreme court to fight for the cause which would eventually bankrupt them.

[/quote]

An interesting theory and not without merit.  Since I know only a little of the case, I’ll have to do some research before I form a response.  Very interesting though.

[quote=gabe] [quote=B24] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job. [/quote]

I gotta go with Andrew Johnson.

 … eh, would that be Lyndon Baines Johnson, or Andrew Jackson?

 … eh, would that be Lyndon Baines Johnson, or Andrew Jackson?

I vote for Jimmy Carter.  Not because he is a douchbag, but he was literally the worst president ever (as far as having a clear objective, working with congress, etc.). 

lmao at myself … I can’t believe I frigged that up. Oh well. Funny thing? My first degree … US History major. Oh sheesh … never post at the end of long weekend.

[quote=LockEDJ]lmao at myself … I can’t believe I frigged that up. Oh well. Funny thing? My first degree … US History major. Oh sheesh … never post at the end of long weekend.

Get me another Ronald Reagan.  Strong defense, conservative fiscal spending policy, don’t f’ with us attitude, and the ability to deal with leaders around the globe.  Personally, I think GWB tried to emulate Reagan, but fell short with his over-the-top “war-monger” persona, and failure to actually cultivate conservative fiscal discipline.

Shania, you screwed up. You had me almost convinced with your lone-wolf GOP macho man routine. And then you link to … Luke? Luke??



Real men link to Solo. As an evil Republican you can link to Bobba Fett. But Luke??



Next you’ll tell us you have Ewok bedspreads!

[quote=LockEDJ] lmao at myself … I can’t believe I frigged that up. Oh well. Funny thing? My first degree … US History major. Oh sheesh … never post at the end of long weekend.

More govt cluster fukc failure.    goes on and on.   govt sucks ate everything.   period.



this GD healthcare entitlement nightmare might send the USA to the pink sheets







Postal Service Cuts List of Branches for Closure (Update1)









Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) – The U.S. Postal Service, which has said it may lose $7.8 billion this year, cut the list of facilities it’s evaluating for closure by 30 percent to 168.



The agency today reduced the number of stations and branches it may shut from a list it issued last month. Since earlier this year, the Postal Service has pared the number slated for possible closure from an initial 3,600 of the agency’s almost 37,000 post offices, branches and stations under review.



“Reducing over-capacity in retail and delivery operations is a smart business move,” Senior Vice President of Operations Steven Forte said today in a statement. “Every effort is being made to maintain and improve customer access to postal services.”



The Postal Service, looking to save money amid a drop in mail volume, is considering closing or consolidating its facilities in urban and suburban areas. The agency has said it won’t eliminate post offices in towns served by only one facility.





Today’s list of potential closings includes six locations in New York City, with three in the Bronx and one at LaGuardia airport.

buy stocks

[quote=Shania Twain]dont change the subject nyc



get long



come from the dark side.



pull up a weekly on SPX



sept-oct 08 gap.    1250ish soon and quick



the force with u brother.



come on over.



LukeSkywalkerESBV3Wallpaper.jpg800×600 [/quote]

I just read this.  Made me laugh.  Very funny Shania.  I like that you have a sense of humor.  Can’t take all this sh*t too seriously.

I still disagree with your market views though.  Very happy to hold cash right now.  I’m absolutely murdering it on my dollar strengthening call, carry trade unwinding, so I’m not losing money there.  My puts are under water, but not for long…

Indy,

you are just telling me what you ‘believe’ but you provide no evidence.

I agree that the CRA is part of a general process from all parties that pushes, probably more than is convenient, for home ownership. Although if that’s your worry the tax treatment of mortgage interest is a much bigger issue. But nobody here has provided any data whatsoever supporting the idea that that led to lower underwriting standards. And that’s something that is easy to measure. Banks keep close track of what they charge and what the default rates are. If the risk/return balance is bad, where’s the evidence?

More importantly, neither you nor anyone else has provided much to support the idea that the CRA is behind the subprime crisis. You’d need to explain how a law from 1977 only managed to have an Impact 30 years later.

The reality is much simpler. The subprime crisis hit many different parts of the world at the same time. There’s a common cause. And it ain’t CRA.

Finally, this whole post started when Shania ignorantly revealed he has no clue that Democrats in the White House have a better economic track record than Republicans. (God bless his ignorant retail-selling heart! ) And that remains true, no matter what you think about the CRA.

Indy,

you are just telling me what you ‘believe’ but you provide no evidence.

I agree that the CRA is part of a general process from all parties that pushes, probably more than is convenient, for home ownership. Although if that’s your worry the tax treatment of mortgage interest is a much bigger issue. But nobody here has provided any data whatsoever supporting the idea that that led to lower underwriting standards. And that’s something that is easy to measure. Banks keep close track of what they charge and what the default rates are. If the risk/return balance is bad, where’s the evidence?

More importantly, neither you nor anyone else has provided much to support the idea that the CRA is behind the subprime crisis. You’d need to explain how a law from 1977 only managed to have an Impact 30 years later.

The reality is much simpler. The subprime crisis hit many different parts of the world at the same time. There’s a common cause. And it ain’t CRA.

Finally, this whole post started when Shania ignorantly revealed he has no clue that Democrats in the White House have a better economic track record than Republicans. (God bless his ignorant retail-selling heart! ) And that remains true, no matter what you think about the CRA.

NBC POLL: PUBLIC SOURS ON HEALTH REFORM

Posted: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:00 PM by Mark Murray

Filed Under: Polls

From NBC’s Mark Murray

As the Senate sprints to pass a health-care bill by Christmas, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that those believing President Obama’s health-reform plan is a good idea has sunk to its lowest level.



Just 32 percent say it’s a good idea, versus 47 percent who say it’s a bad idea.



In addition, for the first time in the survey, a plurality prefers the status quo to reform. By a 44-41 percent margin, respondents say it would be better to keep the current system than to pass Obama’s health plan.



By comparison, in September’s and October’s NBC/Journal polls, the American public preferred changing the system to the status quo, 45 to 39 percent.



The poll was conducted Dec. 11-14, and has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.



The full survey will be released tonight at 6:30 pm ET on NBC Nightly News and MSNBC.com.

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer

WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.

Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way he's doing his job.

The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.

Get me another Ronald Reagan.  Strong defense, conservative fiscal spending policy, don’t f’ with us attitude, and the ability to deal with leaders around the globe.  Personally, I think GWB tried to emulate Reagan, but fell short with his over-the-top “war-monger” persona, and failure to actually cultivate conservative fiscal discipline.

[quote=NYCTrader]

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer

WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.

Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way he's doing his job.

The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.

[quote=NYCTrader]

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer

WASHINGTON – His marks for handling the
8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.

[quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=NYCTrader]

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer

WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.

Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way he's doing his job.

The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.

[quote=gabe] [quote=LA Broker] [quote=gabe]I’m a bit surprised to see so many here bash Democrats since the historical evidence is pretty strong that the economy does better under Dems. More importantly for this crowd, the stock market tends to do better as well. You can Google this yourself, but here’s one example of many: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm I guess there’s a reason why so many here make it clear that this is a sales, not an analytical job. [/quote]

Before he was President, Before he was the Junior Senator from Illinois, Before he was a community organizer-- Barrack Hussien Obama was a Jones trainee.

There is a reason that the Investment banks like GS and MS didn’t need tarp money (although they took some under pressure by the Administration and paid it back as soon as they were ALLOWED to) and the beneficiaries of the repealled Glas-Steagall like BofA, Citi, Wells had to wait much longer and with substantial secondary equity offerings (which GS and MS did not have to raise).

[quote=LSUAlum] There is a reason that the Investment banks like GS and MS didn’t need tarp money (although they took some under pressure by the Administration and paid it back as soon as they were ALLOWED to) and the beneficiaries of the repealled Glas-Steagall like BofA, Citi, Wells had to wait much longer and with substantial secondary equity offerings (which GS and MS did not have to raise).

[quote=Shania Twain]



its was getting bank charter that stopped run on ms and goldie (a potential deposit base was the get out of jail free card)



Hank made em take cash so no one looked weaker then the other



(BTW GS shorted sub prime. was making money. chris cox nixin uptick was very dumb. shorts tried to Lehmanize both of these guys)





[/quote]



Er, no. AIG paid GS close to $20 billion from the TARP bailout. Without that, and without the general TARP bailout, GS would no longer exist, as GS itself has recognized that, repeatedly.



Shorting subprime is of no use if the people on the other side don’t have the money to pay back. That’s why the system appeared close to full collapse after Lehman. Without TARP bailout, and the general government promise of more money if needed, none of those CDS contracts would be worth a nickel because no one would have the money to pay.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Shania Twain]







Er, no. AIG paid GS close to $20 billion from the TARP bailout. Without that, and without the general TARP bailout, GS would no longer exist, as GS itself has recognized that, repeatedly.



Shorting subprime is of no use if the people on the other side don’t have the money to pay back. That’s why the system appeared close to full collapse after Lehman. Without TARP bailout, and the general government promise of more money if needed, none of those CDS contracts would be worth a nickel because no one would have the money to pay.[/quote]



Your 100% wrong.    

becoming a bank, stopped run on ms and gs.       

Shania,



there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Shania Twain]





Er, no. AIG paid GS close to $20 billion from the TARP bailout.



Without that, and without the general TARP bailout,



GS would no longer exist,



as GS itself has recognized that, repeatedly.



[/quote]



You hold yourself as an expert on economics and the sub-prime meltdown.



Your comments in this post are totally incorrect.   



You do not know crap about what happened based on this post.



I’m not an expert and do not claim to be but seriously, you are a total poser based on this.



no joke.



go read up on what happened.   see if your man enuf to come back and admit how wrong you were.



i doubt we see you again.



gezz man



(ps time to call me a salesmen)



Im for real on this one.   you really do not know crap about what happened

ms and gs became bank holding companies. it think it was late sept 2008.



gave them ability to take in deposits and get access fed window etc.



ms and especially gs NEVER had any real capital problems.



It was short sellers (naked w/o uptick rule) and a “run on the bank” fear.



the flow through of AIG counter party TARP money (on credit default swaps) that goldie got was months later.   a non event.   



i think you parrot what you hear on keith oberlmens show.   

Shania,



You and I are paid to do different jobs. No one pays you to write analytical reports. Maybe that’s why you keep writing ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’. No one cares if you can express yourself well. So long as you sell, that’s fine.



But when a client wants something to back up what you say you need the stuff people like me write. That’s the reality. You may even think it garbage but, in the end, people like me get paid for our analysis and people like you don’t.



Sorry if I burst your bubble, but you clearly don’t know much about finance.



But you probably sell very well!



By the way, didn’t you write that you weren’t going to address me anymore?



OK, one last one. What, exactly, do you think ‘run on the bank’ means for an investment bank? How is it different than at a depositary institution? Start thinking about that and you may start to realize your mistakes.

haven’t you figured it out…Shania just doesn’t care…
I mean seriously, look at the crap he/she posts.

I still say it is a weak transcript from Limbaugh’s show.

haven’t you figured it out…Shania just doesn’t care…
I mean seriously, look at the crap he/she posts.

I still say it is a weak transcript from Limbaugh’s show.

[quote=gabe] Shania,



You and I are paid to do different jobs. No one pays you to write analytical reports. Maybe that’s why you keep writing ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’. No one cares if you can express yourself well. So long as you sell, that’s fine.



But when a client wants something to back up what you say you need the stuff people like me write. That’s the reality. You may even think it garbage but, in the end, people like me get paid for our analysis and people like you don’t.



Sorry if I burst your bubble, but you clearly don’t know much about finance.



But you probably sell very well!



By the way, didn’t you write that you weren’t going to address me anymore?



OK, one last more. What, exactly, do you think ‘run on the bank’ means for an investment bank? How is it different than at a depositary institution? Start thinking about that and you may start to realize your mistakes.[/quote]



I can’t speak for anybody else here, but I have never had any client, nor heard of any client of anybody else, ask for an analyst report to back anything up.



That’s a pretty ridiculous statement.



Also, as an analyst, why would you post on the RegisteredRep boards?



In addition, it seems from your responses that you have not passed the CFA exams. I think you are intelligent, just misinformed and maybe have not had the opportunity to pursue the curriculum. However, as someone who has, I think you need to go ahead and brush up on your economics, and finance.



For you to accuse Shania of not having knowledge of finance, it is just a bit hypocritical.



Just out of curiosity, are you an equity analyst?

[quote=Moraen] I have never had any client, nor heard of any client of anybody else, ask for an analyst report to back anything up.



That’s a pretty ridiculous statement. [/quote]



Really? I wonder why places like ML had so many research people writing and talking to clients and FAs.

[quote=gabe] Shania,



You and I are paid to do different jobs. No one pays you to write analytical reports. Maybe that’s why you keep writing ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’. No one cares if you can express yourself well. So long as you sell, that’s fine.



But when a client wants something to back up what you say you need the stuff people like me write. That’s the reality. You may even think it garbage but, in the end, people like me get paid for our analysis and people like you don’t.



Sorry if I burst your bubble, but you clearly don’t know much about finance.



But you probably sell very well!



By the way, didn’t you write that you weren’t going to address me anymore?



OK, one last one. What, exactly, do you think ‘run on the bank’ means for an investment bank? How is it different than at a depositary institution? Start thinking about that and you may start to realize your mistakes.[/quote]





OK. Your right.

Merry Christmas.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Moraen] I have never had any client, nor heard of any client of anybody else, ask for an analyst report to back anything up.



That’s a pretty ridiculous statement. [/quote]



Really? I wonder why places like ML had so many research people writing and talking to clients and FAs.



[/quote]



Is that the same company that got bought by BofA? A lot of good it did to have those research people talking to clients.

By the way, I think you should check your attitude about people who sell. People who sell pay your salary. Income is not generated by analysts and their reports.



Keep that in mind the next time you bash someone for selling. There might be a guy in a cube right now that doesn’t know as much as you do, but if he can sell, he can pay you and your family’s bills.

[quote=Moraen] [quote=gabe] [quote=Moraen] I have never had any client, nor heard of any client of anybody else, ask for an analyst report to back anything up.



That’s a pretty ridiculous statement. [/quote]



Really? I wonder why places like ML had so many research people writing and talking to clients and FAs.



[/quote]



Is that the same company that got bought by BofA? A lot of good it did to have those research people talking to clients.[/quote]



Haha, that’s just mean!

[quote=Moraen] By the way, I think you should check your attitude about people who sell. People who sell pay your salary. Income is not generated by analysts and their reports.



Keep that in mind the next time you bash someone for selling. There might be a guy in a cube right now that doesn’t know as much as you do, but if he can sell, he can pay you and your family’s bills.[/quote]



Ahh, I’m just jerking your chain! Isn’t that what everyone here does?

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=gabe] Shania,



You and I are paid to do different jobs. No one pays you to write analytical reports. Maybe that’s why you keep writing ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’. No one cares if you can express yourself well. So long as you sell, that’s fine.



But when a client wants something to back up what you say you need the stuff people like me write. That’s the reality. You may even think it garbage but, in the end, people like me get paid for our analysis and people like you don’t.



Sorry if I burst your bubble, but you clearly don’t know much about finance.



But you probably sell very well!



By the way, didn’t you write that you weren’t going to address me anymore?



OK, one last one. What, exactly, do you think ‘run on the bank’ means for an investment bank? How is it different than at a depositary institution? Start thinking about that and you may start to realize your mistakes.[/quote]





OK. Your right.

Merry Christmas.[/quote]



Merry Christmas!

[quote=gabe] [quote=Moraen] By the way, I think you should check your attitude about people who sell. People who sell pay your salary. Income is not generated by analysts and their reports.



Keep that in mind the next time you bash someone for selling. There might be a guy in a cube right now that doesn’t know as much as you do, but if he can sell, he can pay you and your family’s bills.[/quote]



Ahh, I’m just jerking your chain! Isn’t that what everyone here does?





[/quote]



That’s true. I have to say, glad to have an intelligent, opposing point of view.



Merry Christmas.

gabe,

Back to the OP…

[quote=NYCTrader] [quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=NYCTrader]

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer

WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.

Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way he's doing his job.

The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.

The point is you selected the ONLY poll that has Obama with strong numbers. I'm not buying the "Obama's numbers look like Reagans" because it never seems to have a chart along with it and it hinges on inflated Obama numbers (like selecting the ONE poll showing Obama at 56%). Polls aren’t the end of the world and it’s early to call him the “worst president ever”.

You really think it "remains to be seen if Obama's polices will work out"? I don't. Obama is empowering government, Reagan empowered commerce.

Shania,

there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.

[quote=gabe]Shania, there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.

[quote=Conrad Dobler] . I’m not buying the “Obama’s numbers look like Reagans” because it never seems to have a chart along with it and it hinges on inflated Obama numbers (like selecting the ONE poll showing Obama at 56%). Polls aren’t the end of the world and it’s early to call him the “worst president ever”.

You really think it “remains to be seen if Obama’s polices will work out”? I don’t. Obama is empowering government, Reagan empowered commerce.

You really think it “remains to be seen if Obama’s polices will work out”? I don’t. Obama is empowering government, Reagan empowered commerce.

[quote=Conrad Dobler]You really think it “remains to be seen if Obama’s polices will work out”? I don’t. Obama is empowering government, Reagan empowered commerce.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Conrad Dobler] [quote=gabe]Shania, there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.[/quote]

[quote=gabe] [quote=Conrad Dobler] [quote=gabe]Shania, there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.

…wants something to back up what you say you need the stuff people like me write… people like me get paid for our analysis and people like you don’t…

[quote=gabe]…wants something to back up what you say you need the stuff people like me write… people like me get paid for our analysis and people like you don’t…

I’ll take that as a failure to respond.

[quote=gabe]Here it is:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_as_reagan.php [/quote] Remove Ronald Reagan and JFK from your chart and they Reds looks better at the end of their term then the Blues. Does that mean typically at the mid term election, the majority of Americans are happier with a Republicans term? Thanks for finding this chart.

Or maybe they are happier that they are about to leave?







Actually, the graph only goes out to the first midterm, which is why W has high ratings. Remember he finished his presidency with almost record low approval. He was popular in 2002 (due to 9/11) by by 2008 not so much.

Yeah I meant mid-terms not end of term. I went back and edited the post.

I’ll take that as a failure to respond.

gabe - I am willing to debate CRA seriously.  I have created the scenario and you did not respond.  I will attempt to make it more visual.

After the new CRA was given it’s fangs, here is what happens


                                                         Bank A

                                                    Lend (Sub-prime)                     Don’t Lend (sub-prime)

                           Lend (sub-prime)        (+10, +10)                                (-3, +14)

Bank B

                       Don’t Lend (sub-prime)   (+14, - 3)                                  (+5, +5)


Now, obviously it gets a little more complicated given that there are several banks involved.  But it is obvious, that it is in the banks best interest to make the sub-prime loans.  The difference in lending and not lending could be huge.  If you are in charge of bank A, you will make the assumption that Bank B is going to lend, and if bank B is going to lend, then you will too.

Of course, you could collude with bank B and agree not to lend, but two problems exist there:  1)  Collusion is illegal and 2)  How do you know bank B won’t renege?

Please discuss.

Moraen,



That’s what’s called ‘begging the question’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)



You are simply assuming the result you are arguing. It’s a circular argument. Why, for example, do you have the Lend, Lend scenario as +10 for both. In fact the real result was -2000 for each! In other words, your argument works because of the values you assume for each scenario but you provide no proof or support why those values are correct.



Look at how it changes if i change the values:



Lend A, Lend B (-200,-200)

Lend A, No Lend B (-100, 100)

No Lend A, Lend B (100, -100)

No Lend A, No Lend B (200, 200)





Now, maybe at the time some thought that lending to subprime was a good idea because they expected to be repaid. But that has nothing to do with CRA. or, at least, I’d ask you what you think the relationship is.

The values are percentages, but used for the sake of argument.  The values don’t matter.  What matters is the difference in the values…  If I used accurate values, they would be similar. 

Economists use placeholders all of the time.  I am not going to sit down and do the research to figure out exact values. 

The argument is not circular.  By showing that it was more profitable for both banks to lend, it shows that it was the only possible rational outcome.  Now, if you want to throw the fact that irrationality is present in everyone, you can.  But it still doesn’t matter.

If you are the CEO of either bank, it is in your best interest to make sub-prime loans.  Why?  Because CEOs live and breathe by share price. 

Do you think that had some lenders NOT made those loans, and the boards watched the profits of other banks skyrocket, that those CEOs would still have jobs?

You have also not used ‘real’ values to back up your arguments, only opinion pieces by journalists.  I have used your sides numbers to show that CRA is in fact a cause, by a paper written by one of CRAs biggest apologists.  The 6% of high-dollar loans that were CRA-related and sub-prime.  That 6% figure is misleading because it ignores, mid-dollar and low dollar loans. 


***Edit - Ok, we need to set some ground rules. 

1)  I will agree that LONG-term the banks lose money by lending.
2)  However, SHORT-term the banks make money by lending.

Thus, my argument holds because CEOs live and breathe by SHORT-term stock price.

Moraen,



I’m aware that the numbers you and I used are ‘made up’. My point is that your game theory argument only works because of the numbers you assumed. But you haven’t explained why we should assume those numbers. There are plenty of examples of financial institutions that decided that the payout was much lower and decided not to get involved with subprime at all. So why did those institutions get it right and others did not. In fact many of the banks that did better are the small community banks that lend to poor neighborhoods!



And, of course, the key point we are debating is CRA. You still haven’t explained why CRA was supposed to make so many want to lend to subprime. Was CRA such a great business for decades prior to 2007?   

For this post to make sense, you need to differentiate between:

1. Lend sub-prime to people who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
2. Lend sub-prime to people who have no chance of paying off the loan.
3. Lend sub-prime to speculators who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
4. Lend sub-prime to speculators who have no chance of paying off the loan.

I believe #1 is the intent of the CRA.
It was numbers 2, 3, 4 that caused the collapse (especially #4). 

[quote=gabe]Moraen,



I’m aware that the numbers you and I used are ‘made up’. My point is that your game theory argument only works because of the numbers you assumed. But you haven’t explained why we should assume those numbers. There are plenty of examples of financial institutions that decided that the payout was much lower and decided not to get involved with subprime at all. So why did those institutions get it right and others did not. In fact many of the banks that did better are the small community banks that lend to poor neighborhoods!



And, of course, the key point we are debating is CRA. You still haven’t explained why CRA was supposed to make so many want to lend to subprime. Was CRA such a great business for decades prior to 2007?   [/quote]

I did say why we are assuming those numbers.  Because you will garner greater returns short-term if you make those sub-prime loans.  Just like you would garner lower returns (in your scenario) long-term.

What it means is that if the standards are now lax, it is MORE beneficial in the short-term to make those loans.  The lax lending standards were caused by CRA.

[quote=Still@jones]For this post to make sense, you need to differentiate between:

1. Lend sub-prime to people who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
2. Lend sub-prime to people who have no chance of paying off the loan.
3. Lend sub-prime to speculators who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
4. Lend sub-prime to speculators who have no chance of paying off the loan.

I believe #1 is the intent of the CRA.
It was numbers 2, 3, 4 that caused the collapse (especially #4). 



[/quote]

Intent and execution are two different things.  Not to pick on you, but it was your intent to make a lot of money at Jones.  And a lot of other people for that matter.

Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) Claims Didn’t Need Government Bailout

December 5th, 2009 • Related • Filed Under • by Gary





Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein said in an online Vanity Fair article recently that the company didn’t need a government bailout, and would have survived without it. President of Goldman Sachs, Gary Cohn, said it stronger, stating the company had cash and “would not have failed.”



Goldman spokesman Lucas van Praag confirmed that Goldman indeed did have a lot of cash on hand they had raised, which would have allowed them to weather a long-term financial storm. “We had cash and funding that would have allowed us to survive for quite a long time,” he said.



Faltering Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner took issue with the statement because the government is attempting to interfere with the pay of banks and financial institutions; even those that have paid back the TARP money like Goldman already has.



Geithner’s argument on Bloomberg Television went like this: “The entire U.S. financial system and all the major firms in the country, and even small banks across the country, were at that moment at the middle of a classic run, a classic bank run.” He said this is the reason the financial system in the U.S. would have collapsed. “None of them would have survived,” he stated.



The reason the argument in stemming around whether the firm needed to be bailed out or not is because of the idea the government thinks it has a say in the matter if that was the case. The argument at this point is irrelevant, as whether they did or not will never be known.



Let’s look at Geithner’s thoughts on the bank run idea making it necessary to bail out everyone and see if it can stand up.



First we need to get the idea out of our head of a bunch of people stampeding the bank to get in line to draw out their money. That could and did happen to a small degree, but what scared the government is in just a couple of clicks on the Internet people can make their bank runs today, and in a very short time empty the deposits in a bank.



The problem with Geithner’s reasoning as I see it is if people do take out, i.e., transfer their money, from their bank, it’s going to be transferred to somewhere other bank or financial institution. Most aren’t going to take their money out and hide it in the equivalent of their mattress.



If one bank gets clobbered, another bank somewhere else will benefit from it. What should we or the government care if one poorly run bank suffers and another benefits. In a true free market the best business survive and the others fall by the wayside. That’s the way it should be.



But by Geithner’s reasoning, the money would have to be completely be taken out of the banking system in order for his scenario to have had to happen. It makes no sense whatsoever. If people were making a run on the banks, they were going to put that money in a bank they better trusted, probably a local or regional one they knew better.



What was really happening is the banking cartel with its large players were in jeopardy of losing their financial and, consequently, political power, if consumers voted to use another bank; which they were in fact doing.



Much of this on the part of Geithner is more than likely political posturing, as the recent debacle in trying to find a CEO for Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) has proven no one is going to take a position like that with the government interfering with pay and other elements of the business.



The government and lawmakers are under fire for the outrageous bailouts and what they have cost taxpayers, along with the extraordinary deficits being run up, which will ultimately savage us all with high inflation.



So they continue to make it look like executive compensation was the reasoning behind the economic and banking crisis, rather than the Federal Reserve and its monetary policies, along with the over-extension of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in bailing out companies beyond the authority and purpose of the institution.



This doesn’t include the stupid government policies which force banks to offer loans to many people which aren’t really qualified to receive them, which was a big part of the housing market collapse, and is largely unreported by the mainstream media.



We need a real capitalist system to re-emerge in America, as government interference in this one has basically made into something which is no longer and can no longer be considered capitalism. This is why the government and its mainstream media allies continue to say capitalism has failed. The government interferes in it, resulting in failure, than extracts itself from its role in the minds of people so it can look like free markets and capitalism were the cause of the downfall, and government interference ended up saving the day. It’s a lie, but it’s a lie that many continue to believe.



This is why the poorly run banks should have been allowed to fail. If they indeed did make poor decisions and their bonuses would have brought them down, then it needed to happen, as the free market would have disciplined them; showing their actions and practices were wrong. That’s the only way it can be done, and not through a government theory that can’t be proven one way or another that the financial system would have collapsed if they hadn’t intervened.

STORY: Goldman, Morgan become banks. Both stocks have huge rally on news. Hoping to stop short seller raids.





Question: Why are Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs doing this?



A: A major reason the banks decided to convert to bank holding companies was to gain access to a stable source of funding: customer deposits.



Investment banks have traditionally relied on borrowed money, rather than deposits, to turn a profit. But as the economy has faltered, and it’s become harder — and more expensive — to borrow money, they’ve realized the appeal of plain-vanilla deposits.



Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had been mulling the conversion for weeks, but Lehman’s bankruptcy last week — along with Merrill Lynch’s merger with Bank of America (BAC) and the government’s takeover of AIG — accelerated the decision.



Morgan Stanley further stabilized its finances Monday by striking an agreement to sell Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Japan’s largest bank, as much as a 20% stake.



The developments mean that Morgan Stanley’s talks with Wachovia about a potential merger are on hold, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter but who is not authorized to be quoted publicly.





Q: How is regulation different for a bank holding company vs. an investment bank?



A: Three ways.



First, bank holding companies have stricter requirements about the amount of capital they must hold — that is, the amount of money they have to offset losses. Historically, investment banks have had few restrictions on how much capital they must have.



Second, investment banks haven’t had strong regulatory oversight. Although the SEC has had a watchdog role in investment banks’ activities, bank holding companies generally have far more rigorous oversight from the Federal Reserve.



Finally, there are some things that bank holding companies just aren’t allowed to do — use large amounts of borrowed money to buy and sell securities, for example. Much of the financial crisis has stemmed from exactly that.





Q: How will Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley acquire deposits?



A: Now that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are bank holding companies, they will aggressively try to expand deposits. Initially, at least, they may do so mainly through their existing brokerage and wealth-management clients, much as Merrill has done for years.



But Robert J. Ellis, a senior vice president at Celent, a financial-services research firm, said he wouldn’t be surprised if the firms each struck a deal “within weeks” to merge with a bank, in an effort to quickly build their deposit base. “Our plan is to acquire (deposits) that will impact the balance sheet, but this won’t result in ATMs on every corner,” says Lucas Van Praag, a Goldman Sachs spokesman.





Q: Is the independent investment bank doomed?



A: Not at all, although the large investment bank is now a thing of the past. Many small and midsize investment banks have survived the carnage on Wall Street. If they make it intact through the current crisis, they could do quite well.



“Many smaller boutique firms will carry on,” says Hugh Johnson of Johnson Illington Advisors. In fact, Johnson says, many of the more aggressive people from the big firms may well land in smaller investment banks. “That’s where the risk takers go — those who can’t operate in the new culture at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will go to small and midsized firms,” Johnson says.



Smaller firms that are able to attract new employees will get another benefit: the business contacts of their new hires. “We see small and midsized investment banks increasing their market share,” says Michael Turner, partner at Fort Lauderdale investment bank Farlie Turner.





Q: What effect will this have on consumers?



A: Gary Stein, a partner with Capital Performance Group, which consults with banks, says more players in the banking world leads to more competition. More competition, in turn, he says, could result in better loan terms for consumers.



Yet the reason such savings may not materialize, says Ellis, of Celent, is that historically, as banks have captured more market share, they’ve also raised their fees. That means, he says, that consumers could ultimately get "less interest on their deposits and pay more interest on their loans."





Q: What does this mean for securities underwriting?



A: In general, very little. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will still be able to bring new stocks and bonds to market, just as they always have.



But because stocks are in the grip of a bear market, new stock offerings will probably be scarce. At the moment, the new issues calendar is about as empty as the Bear Stearns employee cafeteria. “Given the market’s volatility, it’s not a good time to contemplate new equity issue,” Turner says. And, because the debt markets are in such turmoil, there’s not much demand for new bonds, either. Eventually, however, new issue demand will return.



Yahoo! Buzz Mixx       

[quote=Moraen]

[quote=Still@jones]For this post to make sense, you need to differentiate between: 1. Lend sub-prime to people who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan. 2. Lend sub-prime to people who have no chance of paying off the loan. 3. Lend sub-prime to speculators who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan. 4. Lend sub-prime to speculators who have no chance of paying off the loan. I believe #1 is the intent of the CRA. It was numbers 2, 3, 4 that caused the collapse (especially #4).

[/quote]Intent and execution are two different things. Not to pick on you, but it was your intent to make a lot of money at Jones. And a lot of other people for that matter.[/quote]



hahha, it was my intent to be a billionaire!

[quote=Moraen]

[quote=Still@jones]For this post to make sense, you need to differentiate between:

1. Lend sub-prime to people who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
2. Lend sub-prime to people who have no chance of paying off the loan.
3. Lend sub-prime to speculators who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
4. Lend sub-prime to speculators who have no chance of paying off the loan.

I believe #1 is the intent of the CRA.
It was numbers 2, 3, 4 that caused the collapse (especially #4). 
[/quote]Intent and execution are two different things.  Not to pick on you, but it was your intent to make a lot of money at Jones.  And a lot of other people for that matter.
[/quote]

While I agree, that’s not my point. Most things in government fail to meet their intent - just look at the repeal of Glass Steagall.

I always expect my current president and current congress to oversee current events and I hold them responsible for averting any current disasters. Trying to blame Clinton, who hasn’t been in office for 8 years and had absolutely no power to effect change, borders on ridiculous. 
 
As for Jones, I’m now blaming Penny Pennington (the lady in the Jones training videos). 

Right.  But what I’m saying is that despite the intent of the CRA, it lead to other things.  Had CRA not been strengthened, 2, 3 and 4 wouldn’t have happened.  It was Bush’s job to weaken it.  Do you think that would have happened?

[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones]For this post to make sense, you need to differentiate between:

1. Lend sub-prime to people who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
2. Lend sub-prime to people who have no chance of paying off the loan.
3. Lend sub-prime to speculators who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
4. Lend sub-prime to speculators who have no chance of paying off the loan.

I believe #1 is the intent of the CRA.
It was numbers 2, 3, 4 that caused the collapse (especially #4). 
[/quote]Intent and execution are two different things.  Not to pick on you, but it was your intent to make a lot of money at Jones.  And a lot of other people for that matter.
[/quote]

While I agree, that’s not my point. Most things in government fail to meet their intent - just look at the repeal of Glass Steagall.

I always expect my current president and current congress to oversee current events and I hold them responsible for averting any current disasters. Trying to blame Clinton, who hasn’t been in office for 8 years and had absolutely no power to effect change, borders on ridiculous. 
 
As for Jones, I’m now blaming Penny Pennington (the lady in the Jones training videos). 

[quote=Still@jones] [quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones]For this post to make sense, you need to differentiate between:

1. Lend sub-prime to people who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
2. Lend sub-prime to people who have no chance of paying off the loan.
3. Lend sub-prime to speculators who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan.
4. Lend sub-prime to speculators who have no chance of paying off the loan.

I believe #1 is the intent of the CRA.
It was numbers 2, 3, 4 that caused the collapse (especially #4). 
[/quote]Intent and execution are two different things.  Not to pick on you, but it was your intent to make a lot of money at Jones.  And a lot of other people for that matter.
[/quote]

While I agree, that’s not my point. Most things in government fail to meet their intent - just look at the repeal of Glass Steagall.

I always expect my current president and current congress to oversee current events and I hold them responsible for averting any current disasters. Trying to blame Clinton, who hasn’t been in office for 8 years and had absolutely no power to effect change, borders on ridiculous. 
 
As for Jones, I’m now blaming Penny Pennington (the lady in the Jones training videos). 

Yeah, I took a jump of desperation and hit my nuts on a rock. Oh well, what can you do ? Time to go hit on a young teller I guess.

[quote=Still@jones]
While I agree, that’s not my point. Most things in government fail to meet their intent - just look at the repeal of Glass Steagall.
[/quote] And you think healthcare will be any different?

Dean disses healthcare.

How cool.



Obama admin is now a clusterfukc.



right hates plan

left hates plan

center hates plan



we are very close to these dems running for the hills from Jimmy jr.



healthcare fails to pass…wow



priceless

[quote=Ron 14]

Yeah, I took a jump of desperation and hit my nuts on a rock. Oh well, what can you do ? Time to go hit on a young teller I guess.

Not Wendy, Bob

healthcare   NOPE

cap and gown     SORRY

global warming      nay

save the whales     maybe later



Nobel this. bwhahahahahahahaha



This guy might make Jimmy look like G. Washington

[quote=DeBolt][quote=Still@jones]
While I agree, that’s not my point. Most things in government fail to meet their intent - just look at the repeal of Glass Steagall.
[/quote] And you think healthcare will be any different?[/quote]

Nope! It will turn into a complete cluster-f***!
I’m just ok with that.

Moraen,

I’m aware that the numbers you and I used are ‘made up’. My point is that your game theory argument only works because of the numbers you assumed. But you haven’t explained why we should assume those numbers. There are plenty of examples of financial institutions that decided that the payout was much lower and decided not to get involved with sub prime at all. So why did those institutions get it right and others did not. In fact many of the banks that did better are the small community banks that lend to poor neighborhoods!

And, of course, the key point we are debating is CRA. You still haven’t explained why CRA was supposed to make so many want to lend to sub prime. Was CRA such a great business for decades prior to 2007?   

[quote=Moraen]
[quote=Still@jones]For this post to make sense, you need to differentiate between: 1. Lend sub-prime to people who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan. 2. Lend sub-prime to people who have no chance of paying off the loan. 3. Lend sub-prime to speculators who can reasonably afford to pay off the loan. 4. Lend sub-prime to speculators who have no chance of paying off the loan. I believe #1 is the intent of the CRA. It was numbers 2, 3, 4 that caused the collapse (especially #4). 
[/quote]Intent and execution are two different things.  Not to pick on you, but it was your intent to make a lot of money at Jones.  And a lot of other people for that matter.[/quote]

hahha, it was my intent to be a billionaire!

[quote=LSUAlum] [

SUB PRIME has nothing to do with CRA. The CRA was established for banks to lend at Prime rates to a portion of the population that they served (affirmative action for lending). Sub-Prime loans have been around for years, it was the compression of the Prime v. Sub-Prime or Alt-A rates that caused a huge mess.

[quote=gabe] [quote=LSUAlum] SUB PRIME has nothing to do with CRA. The CRA was established for banks to lend at Prime rates to a portion of the population that they served (affirmative action for lending). Sub-Prime loans have been around for years, it was the compression of the Prime v. Sub-Prime or Alt-A rates that caused a huge mess.

[quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=NYCTrader] [quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=NYCTrader]

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer

WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.

Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way he's doing his job.

The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.

The point is you selected the ONLY poll that has Obama with strong numbers. I'm not buying the "Obama's numbers look like Reagans" because it never seems to have a chart along with it and it hinges on inflated Obama numbers (like selecting the ONE poll showing Obama at 56%). Polls aren’t the end of the world and it’s early to call him the “worst president ever”.

You really think it "remains to be seen if Obama's polices will work out"? I don't. Obama is empowering government, Reagan empowered commerce.

[quote=LSUAlum] [quote=gabe] [quote=LSUAlum] SUB PRIME has nothing to do with CRA. The CRA was established for banks to lend at Prime rates to a portion of the population that they served (affirmative action for lending). Sub-Prime loans have been around for years, it was the compression of the Prime v. Sub-Prime or Alt-A rates that caused a huge mess.

That was my very original point, now since lost in all the back and forth. And it’s that the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is very strong that the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House. I’m not arguing cause and effect, just noting the fact. Given that, it’s surprising to me that people who depend so much on the market doing well bash Democrats so much.

As I see it you answered your own question. People who know and believe in markets understand that the "the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House" claim is based largely on the anomaly of the Clinton years (take them out of the equation and it's not even a close contest) and there's zero cause and effect there. Clinton was the beneficiary of systemic changes made during the Reagan years.

Please tell me you are joking. Once again, I get it you are a retail salesman but this topic has been analyzed to death in the financial press. Don’t you ever read anything beyond the sports pages?

To be clear, no, the CRA has basically NOTHING to do with the current crisis. A quick Goggle search will explain why.

Here’s just one:

Businessweek - Bloomberg

and another


http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html


And what’s Clinton got to do with anything? The CRA was passed into law in 1977!!

"In fact, the CRA is one of the most remarkable success stories of the 1990s. Under strong pressure from a second wave of grassroots activism that began ten years ago, many banks have recognized the potential for profitable business in neighborhoods that they had written off without a second thought not so long ago. Mortgage loans to minority and low-income home buyers have soared. Hundreds of local partnerships among banks, community-based organizations and government agencies have resulted in tens of thousands of new units of affordable housing.

The CRA has acquired broad and deep support, due to the difference that it has made in hundreds of communities throughout the United States. This support paid off in 1996 when the CRA emerged intact from a determined attempt by congressional Republicans, following their 1994 electoral victory, to gut the law "

[quote=gabe] That was my very original point, now since lost in all the back and forth. And it’s that the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is very strong that the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House. I’m not arguing cause and effect, just noting the fact. Given that, it’s surprising to me that people who depend so much on the market doing well bash Democrats so much.

As I see it you answered your own question. People who know and believe in markets understand that the "the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House" claim is based largely on the anomaly of the Clinton years (take them out of the equation and it's not even a close contest) and there's zero cause and effect there. Clinton was the beneficiary of systemic changes made during the Reagan years.

Could this thread please go away…

[quote=gabe] [quote=Conrad Dobler] [quote=gabe]Shania, there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.[/quote]

Glass-Steagall DID assist in getting out of the crisis as it allowed MS and GS to become bank holding companies and get to the Fed window. OTOH, when you said that G/S had nothing to do with the meltdown you betrayed the fact that you don't understand how banks like Citi and BofA got in trouble to begin with (G/S allowing them to be both investment AND commercial banks, thus the contagion of bad assets reached into commercial banks).

On the whole, I support the repeal of G/S, but your inability to see how it figured in the crisis says to me this isn’t your area of expertise.

Your error on TARP is just as egregious. MS and GS survived NOT because AIG was propped up to pay off on the short-side bets it had promised to cover, but because of the way Paulsen forced cash in to EVERY large institution’s hands, whether they “wanted it” or not, thus sparing MS and the GS in that order, from the short sellers who’d driven Bear and then Lehman off the cliff.

I don’t doubt you “analyze” something for a living, it just isn’t anything related to finance and markets.

[quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=gabe] That was my very original point, now since lost in all the back and forth. And it’s that the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is very strong that the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House. I’m not arguing cause and effect, just noting the fact. Given that, it’s surprising to me that people who depend so much on the market doing well bash Democrats so much.

As I see it you answered your own question. People who know and believe in markets understand that the "the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House" claim is based largely on the anomaly of the Clinton years (take them out of the equation and it's not even a close contest) and there's zero cause and effect there. Clinton was the beneficiary of systemic changes made during the Reagan years.

I agree with your point that Clinton was a beneficiary of a couple of things (Reagan's policies, the technology revolution) and I'm trying to be fair to Clinton. He signed the bill killing off Glass-Steagall, he championed welfare reform, he employed a good Sec of the Treasury. The "balanced budget" thing goes a tad far in my book since he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that and since his first inclination was to hike taxes and expand government spending at the same time.

[quote=NYCTrader]

1. Regardless what your views on economic policy are, it's soon to determine whether or not Obama's policies will work. Just because you hate them doesn't mean they will be ineffective. [/quote]

It isn’t too early. We’ve seen this movie before, massively expanding government, higher taxes, weaker dollar, national debt exploding, slower growth from the real powerhouse of the economy, the private sector. This path leads to doom. Our only hope is that he changes (or is forced to change) the path.

[quote=NYCTrader]

2. The polls you list above all have Obama with net positive approval ratings, so I'm not sure what your point is.[/quote]

The point was every other single poll aside from the one you selected to quote had Obama at or below 50%. That was the point. I’ve already said that I felt the “worst president ever” label hasn’t been earned, yet. That doesn’t mean you selecting a poll at 56% when every other one is at 50% or well under is kosher.

[quote=NYCTrader]

So, 28 years to the day, Obama and Reagan have the same approval numbers. [/quote]

That theory means next to nothing. It uses a single polling agency (Gallup). It doesn’t appreciate the fact that Obama’s chart is almost completely declining from day one. It doesn’t note that Reagan’s chart showed him gaining support (even before the assassination attempt) before it decline.

More importantly, it doesn’t capture how, while Reagan faced a disapproving and down right universal hostile press corps, Obama benefits mightily from his support in that contingent. For example, while unemployment was lower under Reagan at the same point than under Obama, Reagan faced the gloom and doom reporting from the nightly news, to include endless reports on the homeless. When did you last see a “homeless report” much less one that blamed government policies for it? He’s got the wind at his back of the press corps and hearts and flowers of the usual players overseas and still his poll numbers are in the ditch. Reagan’s numbers improved when he was able to go over and around the press to the public. Obama can’t expect to benefit from that sort of thing, since the press is a major constituency in his case.

[quote=LSUAlum][quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=gabe] That was my very original point, now since lost in all the back and forth. And it’s that the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is very strong that the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House. I’m not arguing cause and effect, just noting the fact. Given that, it’s surprising to me that people who depend so much on the market doing well bash Democrats so much.

As I see it you answered your own question. People who know and believe in markets understand that the "the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House" claim is based largely on the anomaly of the Clinton years (take them out of the equation and it's not even a close contest) and there's zero cause and effect there. Clinton was the beneficiary of systemic changes made during the Reagan years.

I agree with your point that Clinton was a beneficiary of a couple of things (Reagan's policies, the technology revolution) and I'm trying to be fair to Clinton. He signed the bill killing off Glass-Steagall, he championed welfare reform, he employed a good Sec of the Treasury. The "balanced budget" thing goes a tad far in my book since he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that and since his first inclination was to hike taxes and expand government spending at the same time.

[quote=Conrad Dobler]

[quote=NYCTrader]

1. Regardless what your views on economic policy are, it's soon to determine whether or not Obama's policies will work. Just because you hate them doesn't mean they will be ineffective. [/quote]

It isn’t too early. We’ve seen this movie before, massively expanding government, higher taxes, weaker dollar, national debt exploding, slower growth from the real powerhouse of the economy, the private sector. This path leads to doom. Our only hope is that he changes (or is forced to change) the path.

[quote=NYCTrader]

2. The polls you list above all have Obama with net positive approval ratings, so I'm not sure what your point is.[/quote]

The point was every other single poll aside from the one you selected to quote had Obama at or below 50%. That was the point. I’ve already said that I felt the “worst president ever” label hasn’t been earned, yet. That doesn’t mean you selecting a poll at 56% when every other one is at 50% or well under is kosher.

[quote=NYCTrader]

So, 28 years to the day, Obama and Reagan have the same approval numbers. [/quote]

That theory means next to nothing. It uses a single polling agency (Gallup). It doesn’t appreciate the fact that Obama’s chart is almost completely declining from day one. It doesn’t note that Reagan’s chart showed him gaining support (even before the assassination attempt) before it decline.

More importantly, it doesn’t capture how, while Reagan faced a disapproving and down right universal hostile press corps, Obama benefits mightily from his support in that contingent. For example, while unemployment was lower under Reagan at the same point than under Obama, Reagan faced the gloom and doom reporting from the nightly news, to include endless reports on the homeless. When did you last see a “homeless report” much less one that blamed government policies for it? He’s got the wind at his back of the press corps and hearts and flowers of the usual players overseas and still his poll numbers are in the ditch. Reagan’s numbers improved when he was able to go over and around the press to the public. Obama can’t expect to benefit from that sort of thing, since the press is a major constituency in his case.

Dude, you asked me for charts and graphs backing up my claims.  I delivered them.  You can rationalize it all you want, but you lost me at hostile press corps.  The numbers are the numbers.  They speak for themselves.

People who know and believe in markets understand that the “the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House” claim is based largely on the anomaly of the Clinton years (take them out of the equation and it’s not even a close contest) and there’s zero cause and effect there. Clinton was the beneficiary of systemic changes made during the Reagan years.

 

… but you lost me at hostile press corps. 

Ahhh, let me explain. I don’t know if you were around at the time, but Reagan's numbers came in the headwind of a hostile press (and hostile Hollywood and hostile intelligencia). There were countless CBS evening news updates about how horrible the economy was, how there were millions of homeless in the streets and how it was Reagan's fault. Mitch Snyder became a national figure. Obama's numbers are just as bad and that's with the press carrying the water for him. When did you last see anything about the homeless?

Reagan's numbers soared when he got to the people around the press and lessened their impact. Obama has no equivalent upside. He’s in a completely different situation.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Conrad Dobler] People who know and believe in markets understand that the "the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House" claim is based largely on the anomaly of the Clinton years (take them out of the equation and it's not even a close contest) and there's zero cause and effect there. Clinton was the beneficiary of systemic changes made during the Reagan years.

[/quote]

Factually incorrect. You can take out the top perfomer on both sides and you still get the same results. [/quote]

Prove it. Every time I've heard an attempt at this line of logic (and it’s always from a partisan Democrat) it was clear Clinton pulled the Democrat's numbers up strongly, and that's if you're silly enough to believe there's usually any direct cause and effect between the party in the Whitehouse and the market.

[quote=gabe]

Then again, if you are going to argue that the reason the economy did well under Clinton is due to what Reagan did, it's clear you are not interested in a real discussion, just in regurgitating GOP talking points. [/quote]

Nonsense. Reagan remade the landscape, he transformed the tax code, energized commerce, sang the virtues of capitalism. His policy changes brought about the biggest bull market in American history. Clinton inherited the fruits of that tree and he happened to be in office when technology took a great leap forward. He’s not without his own (minor) achievements, but the fact remains he stood on Reagan’s shoulders.

[quote=gabe]
you're just a retail salesman, and it shows![/quote]

One with a background in economics, who has a grasp of the markets and market history and knows a pretender when he sees one claiming to be an equity analyst.

Conrad,



You can’t even read my friend, where did I ever say I was an equity analyst?



Listen, it’s clear you rely on Fox News talking points and are unwilling to look at numbers. Someone just posted a graph proving their point and you responded with that lame “blame the press” nonsense Republicans always bring up.



I’m always game to have a good analytical debate, as with Moraen. But you don’t know what you are talking about and clearly rely on myths about your heros.



It’s OK, your job is to sell, not to think. Every time some newbie with experience in finance shows up here the first thing he’s told is his MBA and his in-depth knowledge of capital markets are irrelevant. This is a sales job.



Who knows, maybe you studied economics back when you were taking classes in a community college. Obviously you don’t need what little you learned for your current job.



Fact is, I couldn’t last one week doing retal sales like you do. And you could never get an analytical job. To each their own.



Have fun selling!

[quote=gabe]Conrad,

You can't even read my friend, where did I ever say I was an equity analyst? [/quote]

That’s the impression you’ve been trying to leave throughout this thread. Like when you said “But when a client wants something to back up what you say you need the stuff people like me write. “.

[quote=gabe] Listen, it's clear you rely on Fox News talking points and are unwilling to look at numbers. [/quote]

Doesn‘t take long for the “Fox News“ stuff to get tossed around once you‘re caught out of your depth.

“Cause and effect”? Ring a bell? The “numbers” you’re trying to show us assume that they’re the result of some action on the part of the then current inhabitant of the Whitehouse. There’s just as much “proof” that the NFC’s success in the Superbowl drives the market.

[quote=gabe]

I'm always game to have a good analytical debate, as with Moraen. [/quote]

Saying “Democrats are better are better for the economy and markets” isn’t “analytical” is juvenile bloviating that no one with a background in economics or markets would attempt. It’s party-line demagoguery.

[quote=gabe] It's OK, your job is to sell, not to think. [/quote]

You don’t know the first thing about me, my job, or as you’ve proved, economics and markets. Like I’ve said all along, you might have a job title that includes the word “analyst” but it has nothing to do with finance or economics.

Conrad,



We all tend to gravitate to what we are good at (or at least to what we are less bad at!). In your case it’s selling. Nothing wrong with that, plenty of people do it and some do very well. Leave it at that.

[quote=LockEDJ] I’ll take that as a failure to respond.

[quote=gabe] [quote=LockEDJ] I’ll take that as a failure to respond.

too. As an analyst, you should probably learn how to spell a bit better. It makes what you write a bit more compelling.

Conrad,

We all tend to gravitate to what we are good at (or at least to what we are less bad at!). In your case it’s selling. Nothing wrong with that, plenty of people do it and some do very well. Leave it at that.

[quote=gabe]Conrad, We all tend to gravitate to what we are good at (or at least to what we are less bad at!). In your case it’s selling. Nothing wrong with that, plenty of people do it and some do very well. Leave it at that.

[quote=gabe] [quote=LockEDJ] I’ll take that as a failure to respond. [/quote]

You can take it as a bagel with cream cheese if it makes you happy!

[/quote]
Tell you what; I’ll take it to mean you couldn’t answer the question. Best of luck to you trying to raise the ire of others.

I have better things to do than get into a pissing contest with a skunk. Best of the Holiday season to you.

Agreed. We know this type (Fancies himself an intellectual, an “analyst”, “knows“ the market, but knows nothing in reality. Knows next to nothing about what advisors do, but knows they’re scum and simple minded salesmen. The archetype for the baby in the E-trade commercials) nothing's gained by wasting time with them.

[quote=gabe] [quote=Conrad Dobler] [quote=gabe]Conrad, We all tend to gravitate to what we are good at (or at least to what we are less bad at!). In your case it’s selling. Nothing wrong with that, plenty of people do it and some do very well. Leave it at that. [/quote]

nothing’s gained by wasting time with them.

What I do pays me well and rewards my clients even more.

[quote=Conrad Dobler]

Agreed. We know this type (Fancies himself an intellectual, an “analyst”, “knows“ the market, but knows nothing in reality. Knows next to nothing about what advisors do, but knows they’re scum and simple minded salesmen. The archetype for the baby in the E-trade commercials) nothing’s gained by wasting time with them.

[quote=Conrad Dobler] nothing’s gained by wasting time with them.[/quote]

yet you can’t seem to turn away!



I’d return to selling if I were you, no need to worry your pretty little head.

It is pretty, no?

Primo, you showed up! So nice to see you.



It’s fascinating how most jobs attract a certain type of person, no? I guess there’s a commonality among FAs as well that shows up in this board.

Just callin’ it like I see it.  Exactly what kind of analyst are you again?

Just callin’ it like I see it. Exactly what kind of analyst are you again?

[quote=Primo] Just callin’ it like I see it.  Exactly what kind of analyst are you again?[/quote]

But if I explain what I do, would you understand what I wrote without having to look it up in wikipedia?



Listen, you guys are busy selling. Busy people cling to a few beliefs and myths they find comforting. So me showing up to explain that the economy and stock market tend to do better under Democrats in the White House probably upset you all.

Sorry about that.     

Well, I’ll take that you could not back up your claims with any actual experience or data and just quoted businessweek.com as proof that you are uniformed and do not understand the concept of cause and effect very well.

[quote=LSUAlum] Well, I’ll take that you could not back up your claims with any actual experience or data and just quoted businessweek.com as proof that you are uniformed and do not understand the concept of cause and effect very well.

[quote=gabe] [quote=LSUAlum] Well, I’ll take that you could not back up your claims with any actual experience or data and just quoted businessweek.com as proof that you are uniformed and do not understand the concept of cause and effect very well.

Soooo that would make you what kind of analyst exactly?

[quote=Primo] Soooo that would make you what kind of analyst exactly?[/quote]

The kind that doesn’t sell retail!



Actually mostly economics (international)

haha, I knew you’d need wikipedia!







You work at any of the wirehouses? Do you have any clients that invest internationally?

haha, I knew you’d need wikipedia!



You work at any of the wirehouses? Do you have any clients that invest internationally?

If your clients like to invest abroad and wonder what may happen in international markets and economies, chances are they read stuff written by people like me. I work at one of the major banks, sell side research.

If your clients like to invest abroad and wonder what may happen in international markets and economies, chances are they read stuff written by people like me. I work at one of the major banks, sell side research.

Already told you. If you read sell-side reports on international economics and finance you know what I’m talking about. For example investors that look at what’s happening in Greece or Dubai. International fixed income sell side research. Not going to get much more specific than that.

Already told you. If you read sell-side reports on international economics and finance you know what I’m talking about. For example investors that look at what’s happening in Greece or Dubai. Not going to get much more specific than that.

[quote=LSUAlum]We are debating the intent of the CRA. The above was in reference to a quote stating the intent of the CRA was to lend Sub-Prime to people who could reasonably afford to pay off the loan.

[quote=Shania Twain] [quote=LSUAlum]We are debating the intent of the CRA. The above was in reference to a quote stating the intent of the CRA was to lend Sub-Prime to people who could reasonably afford to pay off the loan.