Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wall Street Financial Crisis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    This is really corporatism more than socialism, although the two are very close. In socialism, money is taken away from the rich and middle-class and given to the poor. In corporatism, money is taken away from the middle-class and poor to corporations to bail them out of investment decisions they made that originally made them tons of money but later turned out bad. (Yes, if you're an American taxpayer, you are paying for this. It might be two years until you find out, but don't doubt it.)
    rj1,

    That is patently unfair.

    Indicative of an tilt for the elitists and rich.

    How does the middle class survive?


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • #17
      [QUOTE]
      Originally posted by donnie View Post
      not exactly, but you knew that. The US has tons of socialism, the idea is to have a safe mix.
      Somebody wondered if I am an expert on America and I had to say no, not at all.

      However, the more I hang on at WAB, I keep learning and that is why I am here.

      The Presidential election and now this bail out of banks has got me real confused.

      I thought Republicans are for less invasive government, while the Democrats are for govt control.

      In this case trilions of dollars (which even by US standards is huge!) are being used to salvage sharp businessmen who have gyped the public! That is invasive governance and yet in the Presidential election, Republicans speak of lowering tax etc. How will they make ends meet, more so, when they speak of keeping the wars going. Wars are not cheap. Afghanistan, Iraq, Missile Defence, Georgia, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, the Middle East. Dizzying for anyone!

      Bush may escape, but imagine the next govt and Bush's legacy!



      FNMA was a "New Deal" socialist program, they were "more government" your right, they should have never existed in the first place.
      Yes, that is what surprises me. The US adopt socialist means when it suits and criticise Europe because of their socialist manner, which actually is what Christianity is all about and yet the conservative Christians are nowhere near socialism. Really confusing. On the one hand, people are fierce Christians and on the other hand, they damn the deprived!!


      well now, every now and then we get a president that expands government, then many years later we have to pay for those socialist projects like FNMA.
      No idea as to what is FNMA, but what are the socialist projects? These banks which are ******** the common hard-working people and those loveable 'hockey moms'?

      your right, but at this point they have been allowed to exist and operate under the guise of "privitised government" for so long they have been entrenched into our economy, and until we can allow these companies to rise or fall of thier own volition, then we will always have to pay.
      If the people have made the mistake, then let them suffer. Let Laissez-faire rule!


      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

      HAKUNA MATATA

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rj1 View Post
        This is really corporatism more than socialism, although the two are very close. In socialism, money is taken away from the rich and middle-class and given to the poor. In corporatism, money is taken away from the middle-class and poor to corporations to bail them out of investment decisions they made that originally made them tons of money but later turned out bad. (Yes, if you're an American taxpayer, you are paying for this. It might be two years until you find out, but don't doubt it.)

        Just a couple weeks ago the head of the FDIC came to the Treasury Department saying they might need loans to continue covering failing banks. Now the Treasury Department is covering all losses in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They have two ways to do these things: higher taxes for everyone or printing money. That's it. Knowing this country as well as I do, we will probably do option 2, because Americans in general have a hard time understanding inflation and the effects of the printing press on what they buy and their life, unlike higher taxes which they can grasp pretty well.

        This whole thing is really just a perfect storm with all the contributing factors being out there in plain sight but they were allowed to fester and grow for a few years.
        rj1,

        If the choice is between increased taxes and a loong recession, I have absolutely no doubt that I would choose the former. However, I would also ask very hard questions as to why we reached this mess and who should be the guy hanging from the gallows (in a manner of speaking)

        Originally posted by donnie View Post
        FNMA was a "New Deal" socialist program, they were "more government" your right, they should have never existed in the first place.
        Donnie,

        The New Deal is really old history. At present (actually since the sixties) Phony and Fraudy have been going private. There is really no reason for the Government to bail them out now, apart from the even more colossal mess that might result if they do not do so.

        What I would really like to understand is what the regulators were doing all this while...
        "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

        Comment


        • #19
          I say, damn everyone, better deal for the common man and damn the rich!

          The Rich will survive.

          The poor will cause chaos, if the Rubicon is crossed!


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            Somebody wondered if I am an expert on America and I had to say no, not at all.

            However, the more I hang on at WAB, I keep learning and that is why I am here.

            The Presidential election and now this bail out of banks has got me real confused.

            I thought Republicans are for less invasive government, while the Democrats are for govt control.
            Neither is truly accurate, republican are for less government in day to day lives, but want to protect their corporate constituents.

            Democrats are looking for more government programs to assist the poor in their daily lives, but not in an Orwellian way.

            Unfortunately, Iím neither very wealthy nor poor, so Iím all out of luck.

            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            In this case trilions of dollars (which even by US standards is huge!) are being used to salvage sharp businessmen who have gyped the public! That is invasive governance and yet in the Presidential election, Republicans speak of lowering tax etc. How will they make ends meet, more so, when they speak of keeping the wars going. Wars are not cheap. Afghanistan, Iraq, Missile Defence, Georgia, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, the Middle East. Dizzying for anyone!

            Bush may escape, but imagine the next govt and Bush's legacy!
            the mortgage problem started way before Bush, I could make a very good argument that it started its downward plunge under Clinton with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)

            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            [Yes, that is what surprises me. The US adopt socialist means when it suits and criticise Europe because of their socialist manner
            Democrats do not criticize European socialism, they adore it

            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            which actually is what Christianity is all about and yet the conservative Christians are nowhere near socialism. Really confusing. On the one hand, people are fierce Christians and on the other hand, they damn the deprived!!
            The Christian right are not generally capitalist per se, they vote on religious issues, Reagan brought together a bunch of different groups and created the conservative movement, capitalist, and the religious right bonded, but not necessarily because of the same issues, a catholic for instance should neither be a republican or a democrat, they have very socialist view of the poor, but their ideals about abortion, homosexuality, and other moral debates cause the conflict when deciding to vote.

            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            No idea as to what is FNMA, but what are the socialist projects?
            FNMA is Fannie Mae, it was created with the "new deal" which was a complete over reaction to an economic crisis in the 1930's. the new deal was an enemy of laissez-faire, and was the brain-child of a bunch of Columbia and Harvard law professors who had the ear of Franklin Roosevelt.

            It started with the National Industrial Recovery Act (guaranteed collective bargaining, unions. They also created regulations on pricing, production, and quality standards, basically price fixing) ruled unconstitutional

            Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation FDIC (government backed deposits)

            Social Security Act

            Unemployment insurance

            Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) welfare

            The Railroad Retirement Board

            NY minimum wage law

            Federal Emergency Relief Act (an unemployment compensation act)

            Securities and Exchange Commission SEC

            Federal National Mortgage Association AKA Fannie Mae (FNMA) a secondary mortgage monopoly

            Federal Housing Administration FHA

            Agricultural Adjustment Administration (this was a farm subsidy to keep farmers from over producing, artificially controlling crop cost) ruled unconstitutional, but later revised, and accepted in a new form.

            Farm Security Administration (bought farms from poor farmers that farmed on bad land, and lent them land somewhere else that was actually better for farming, but was owned by the government)

            Tennessee Valley Authority (a bunch of construction projects)

            Public works administration PWA (this was a work program that employed the jobless to reforest, construct, work ect.)

            Resettlement Administration (relocated struggling people to government planned communities)

            Rural Electrification Administration (created electric co-ops in rural areas)

            He also temporarily suspended the gold standard

            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            If the people have made the mistake, then let them suffer. Let Laissez-faire rule!
            either way, we pay, either through a failed economy, or through a failed bank.
            Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
            Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
            Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
            Listen to the words long written down
            When the man comes around- Johnny Cash

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by antimony View Post
              Donnie,

              The New Deal is really old history. At present (actually since the sixties) Phony and Fraudy have been going private. There is really no reason for the Government to bail them out now, apart from the even more colossal mess that might result if they do not do so.
              yes and no, "phony" FNMA in peticular had the unspoken guaratee of governemnt backing, this "privatised" former government program knew from day one that the government would never let it collapse. It was inherantly implied. The government made it a secondary mortgag monopoly, when it went private it didnt change that fact, to date they hold half the morgage market, this monopoly is a direct result from the manner in whcich it was created.

              Originally posted by antimony View Post
              What I would really like to understand is what the regulators were doing all this while...
              good question
              Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
              Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
              Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
              Listen to the words long written down
              When the man comes around- Johnny Cash

              Comment


              • #22
                Don't worry good people, the world is happy to share the burden with the American taxpayer, or at least the Chinese, Japanese, Euros in that order...

                Why? Because The US governement will pay a part of the bill by printing dollars (the other central banks having the task of buying them to sustain the value of the American currency) and Asian investors will likely bail the two companies out like they get used to do now for each US corporate blunder.(Bear sterns, Lehman brothers,.....)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by donnie View Post
                  the mortgage problem started way before Bush, I could make a very good argument that it started its downward plunge under Clinton with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)
                  Here's my blame list:

                  Bush is partly to blame for his statement that everyone should own a house that pushed easy money for lower income homeowners. Alan Greenspan is partly to blame for doing megalow interest rates for so long after the dotcom bubble popped which created this large excess and mad rush that drove the housing bubble. Congress is partly to blame for ignoring Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's money problems in exchange for campaign donations. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are partly to blame for being run as one huge slush fund where no one had any idea what the companies' financial state was for a long time. The mortgage issuers and financial companies are partly to blame for not taking any forbearance in what they had on their books and were selling. The regulators are partly to blame for not actually regulating at many levels of government.

                  The Christian right are not generally capitalist per se, they vote on religious issues...
                  Which is the reason why a lot of Republicans were incredibly distraught and pissed off by Mike Huckabee's performance in the Republican primary. If Huckabee were in Europe, he would be called a Christian Democrat.

                  Huckabee's performance had me LMAO. Republicans standing up in horror that a person in their party performing so well was not 100% pro-business, low taxes. And they couldn't attack him, because he was a Baptist preacher! :))

                  FNMA is Fannie Mae, it was created with the "new deal" which was a complete over reaction to an economic crisis in the 1930's. the new deal was an enemy of laissez-faire, and was the brain-child of a bunch of Columbia and Harvard law professors who had the ear of Franklin Roosevelt.
                  It should be noted that that's what the American people voted for at the time en masse.

                  1928 - Republican Hoover won 42 states and 58% of the vote, Democrat Cox won 6 states and 41% of the vote.

                  1932 - Democrat Roosevelt won 42 states and 57% of the vote, Republican Hoover won 6 states and 40% of the vote. So 16% of the Republican voters in 1928 switched to the Democrat. It should also be noted the support of the Socialist Party tripled from 1928.

                  1936 - Democrat Roosevelt won 46 states and 61% of the vote, Republican Landon won 2 states and 37% of the vote. So Roosevelt actually increased his margin.

                  He would win two more terms at lower margins but still comfortably.

                  I don't care too much for Roosevelt but he had the power of the mob behind him and he gave them what they wanted. And he did a lot of actions that were perhaps unconstitutional, which the opposition hated but his supporters just shrugged off as nothing. Gee, where have I seen that before? "History does not repeat, but it does rhyme."

                  Just be happy we didn't end up with someone like Huey Long.

                  He also temporarily suspended the gold standard
                  Not really, he just deflated the value of the dollar and made private gold ownership forbidden.

                  On April 5, 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Presidential Executive Order 6102 calling in gold owned for the purpose of "hoarding." Private citizens were paid for the gold in dollars at a going rate of $20.67 per ounce. The Treasury then set the price of gold to $35 per ounce, thus devaluing the dollar and boosting the gold-backed dollar money supply in order to stop the persistent deflation that was crippling the economy.
                  This is one of the most cynical political manuevers of all-time alongside Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. He bought all the gold at $20.67 and then stated it was worth $35.
                  Last edited by rj1; 08 Sep 08,, 14:06.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rj1 View Post
                    Here's my blame list:

                    Bush is partly to blame for his statement that everyone should own a house that pushed easy money for lower income homeowners. Alan Greenspan is partly to blame for doing megalow interest rates for so long after the dotcom bubble popped which created this large excess and mad rush that drove the housing bubble. Congress is partly to blame for ignoring Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's money problems in exchange for campaign donations. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are partly to blame for being run as one huge slush fund where no one had any idea what the companies' financial state was for a long time. The mortgage issuers and financial companies are partly to blame for not taking any forbearance in what they had on their books and were selling. The regulators are partly to blame for not actually regulating at many levels of government.
                    good list, heres some more

                    Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act

                    by combining the financial services and banking industries this allowed financial service companies to spread thier risk, allowing them to take greater, and greater chances. couple this with securitization, and everyone thought the the other guy was taking all the risk.

                    countrywide, and Indy-mac was one of these financial service debacles, combine this with the fact that they were providing FOA loans to politicians in return for favorable treatment on thier request for government backed refinancing through the FHA

                    creative financing like the ajustable rate morgage ARM

                    with houseing prices going through the roof, this made sense for speculators who were looking to make a quick investment on a swap, but actual home owners were taking out these loans, when houseing prices crashed and interest rates went, then BAM, perfect storm

                    plus morgage brokers make a killer commision on ARMS, so they pushed these whenever possible

                    the federal reserve

                    they kept interest rates low, and bailed out Long-Term Capital Management, this along with fact that Fannie Mae was a goverment created monopoly, pretty muched assured everyone that if things went sour the fed would step in and spend our money.

                    Originally posted by rj1 View Post
                    Which is the reason why a lot of Republicans were incredibly distraught and pissed off by Mike Huckabee's performance in the Republican primary. If Huckabee were in Europe, he would be called a Christian Democrat.

                    Huckabee's performance had me LMAO. Republicans standing up in horror that a person in their party performing so well was not 100% pro-business, low taxes. And they couldn't attack him, because he was a Baptist preacher! :))
                    he's a perfect example

                    Originally posted by rj1 View Post
                    It should be noted that that's what the American people voted for at the time en masse.
                    because people were convinced they needed goverment to save then, and once you have entitlements, its hard for people to give them up. it also helped that he repealed prohibition, which made him a very popular guy

                    Originally posted by rj1 View Post
                    Just be happy we didn't end up with someone like Huey Long.
                    true

                    Originally posted by rj1 View Post
                    Not really, he just deflated the value of the dollar and made private gold ownership forbidden.

                    This is one of the most cynical political manuevers of all-time alongside Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. He bought all the gold at $20.67 and then stated it was worth $35.
                    for a year before they passed the Gold Reserve Act, the doller was freely traded on the open market without the backing of gold.
                    Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
                    Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
                    Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
                    Listen to the words long written down
                    When the man comes around- Johnny Cash

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      WaMu CEO ousted

                      In another series of depressing news for the mortgage lending Industry, WaMu's CEO Kerry Killinger has ben forced out. This adds to a list of recent top executive usters (Citigroup, Merryll Lynch, Wachovia)

                      Source:
                      Free Preview - WSJ.com

                      Excerpt:
                      Washington Mutual Forces Out CEO
                      By DAN FITZPATRICK and PETER LATTMAN
                      September 8, 2008 11:52 a.m.

                      Kerry Killinger, who helped build Washington Mutual Inc. into the nation's largest thrift and then presided over its rapid decline, was ousted as chief executive, making him the latest casualty of the mortgage crisis.

                      Washington Mutual also said it entered a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Thrift Supervision, meaning it is now effectively on probation. The bank said the regulatory warning concerns aspects of its operations related to risk management and compliance.

                      Washington Mutual's shares fell 50 cents, or 12%, to $3.77 in recent trading Monday. They have traded in a 52-week range of $3.03 to $39.25.

                      For months, Mr. Killinger had fought off a growing chorus of calls for his removal. Even after Citigroup Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co. and Wachovia Corp. pushed out their chiefs over mortgage-related write-downs, and Mr. Killinger disclosed losses at WaMu of as much as $19 billion, the company's board, dominated by associates and longtime allies, continued to back him.

                      The board recently got new blood in key posts and concluded WaMu needed an outsider to signal a fresh start, according to people familiar with the matter. Board leaders conducted a discreet search for Mr. Killinger's replacement and told the CEO Thursday that they wanted him to retire, these people said.

                      Succeeding Mr. Killinger will be Alan Fishman, currently chairman of New York commercial mortgage broker Meridian Capital Group. Before joining Meridian in 2007, Mr. Fishman was president and chief operating officer of Philadelphia-based Sovereign Bank, the nation's second-largest thrift.

                      WaMu's shares have fallen about 85% in the past year, and analysts say its financial position is among the worst of any major U.S. financial institution. WaMu has large holdings of mortgages made in regions where house prices have fallen sharply. More than $50 billion of its holdings are option adjustable-rate mortgages, a kind of loan where borrowers have the option of making a minimum payment that may not even cover the interest due. Borrowers who make the minimum payment on a regular basis -- as many do -- can see their loan balance rise. Some have found themselves in over their heads and ended up defaulting.

                      Another issue Mr. Fishman will face is the role of private-equity firm TPG (formerly Texas Pacific Group), which led a $7 billion capital infusion into WaMu in April. TPG structured the deal so it wouldn't have control over WaMu's business operations. The federal Office of Thrift Supervision gives extra scrutiny to entities that hold controlling stakes in a thrift.

                      In recent weeks, WaMu has offered unusually high interest rates -- a move seen as an urgent bid to shore up deposits. If its share price doesn't improve, some investors involved with WaMu may be open to a merger or sale in 2009, according to people familiar with the situation.

                      While some analysts say WaMu needs more capital, one person close to the company said he doesn't believe a new infusion is necessary and the thrift can remain independent. Potential investors may be reluctant to put money in, having seen the plunge in WaMu shares since the earlier capital raising.

                      On Probation

                      The bank said Monday it will provide regulators an updated multiyear business plan and forecast for earnings, asset quality, capital and business-segment performance. In a bid to reassure investors, WaMu said the plan "will not require the company to raise capital, increase liquidity or make changes to the products and services it provides to customers."

                      The memorandum of understanding comes as federal regulators have increased the number of struggling banks they have effectively put on probation. The secret agreements can force banks to take steps including raising capital, cutting back on risky loans and suspending dividend payments. They are sometimes a precursor to more severe, publicly disclosed enforcement actions if conditions don't improve.

                      Mr. Killinger, who couldn't be reached for comment, transformed Seattle-based WaMu into a national giant in mortgage lending and consumer banking via a string of mergers in the 1990s. But he also made some costly mistakes with the company's mortgage-hedging operation that undercut profits during a mortgage boom. He pursued an aggressive retail expansion marred by poor locations in too many markets.

                      Then he steered WaMu into subprime mortgages, only to discover too late that it was lending to many unqualified borrowers. Sinking home values in California and other WaMu markets dealt a heavy blow.

                      The thrift reacted to this year's mortgage meltdown by laying off thousands of employees, closing mortgage centers and cutting its dividend. Mr. Killinger has said that mortgage-related losses could total $12 billion to $19 billion this year. Mr. Killinger's departure is a "confluence" of these events, said a person familiar with the situation.

                      TPG's Role

                      Company directors, some of them civic leaders in WaMu's hometown of Seattle, were loyal to Mr. Killinger, who had served as chief executive since 1990. The TPG deal was widely criticized as structured to help Mr. Killinger hold on to his job. He would have almost certainly lost control of the company if the board had pursued a sale to a major bank like J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which looked into buying WaMu.

                      The board has put new members in key roles, starting with new Chairman Stephen Frank, a longtime WaMu director and the former chief executive of electric utility Southern California Edison. Former Starbucks Corp. Chief Executive Officer Orin Smith, a director since 2005, became chairman of the finance committee and succeeded Mary Pugh, who resigned in April. Shareholder groups called for Ms. Pugh's ouster, blaming the finance committee for letting WaMu enter risky mortgage areas without recognizing the risk posed by a U.S. housing bubble. Ms. Pugh didn't answer an email seeking comment.

                      TPG founder and managing director David Bonderman joined the board in April at the time of the capital infusion, and was viewed as a supporter of Mr. Killinger. He intends to stay on the board, said people familiar with the situation. Mr. Bonderman couldn't be reached Sunday.

                      TPG has agreed with the Office of Thrift Supervision that it wouldn't use its holdings to exert control over WaMu's management or policies, according to a consent order from the office. A person familiar with the matter said the office was informed of WaMu's planned CEO change on Thursday. A spokesman for the office declined to comment.

                      TPG's $2 billion investment in WaMu was the second time the private-equity firm had been involved with the Seattle thrift. In 1996, TPG earned a fortune by selling American Savings Bank, which it bought during the savings-and-loan crisis, to WaMu. Mr. Bonderman served on WaMu's board between 1996 and 2002 and worked closely with Mr. Killinger.

                      In the latest crisis, troubled financial institutions have attracted a crowd of bottom-fishers hoping to emulate the success of those who bought S&Ls at their nadir. The same month TPG took its WaMu stake, New York-based Corsair Capital invested $1 billion to shore up Cleveland's National City Corp.

                      So far, the bets mostly aren't working out, as the housing market continues its tumble, and mortgage-related assets lose value. TPG executives have said they are taking the long view, hoping that WaMu's national franchise will eventually prove a valuable asset.

                      Fishman at the Helm

                      The new CEO, Mr. Fishman, is a lifelong resident of Brooklyn, N.Y., and spent nearly two decades at Chemical Bank, which is now part of J.P. Morgan Chase. As chief executive of Brooklyn-based Independence Community Bank, he competed against WaMu. Sovereign Bancorp Inc. bought Independence for $3.6 billion in June 2006, and Mr. Fishman left six months later.

                      Mr. Fishman will receive a $10 million signing bonus to take the helm at WaMu, of which $2.5 million is a stock award based on performance, according to a person familiar with the terms. He will receive a salary of $1 million and options to buy five million shares. The majority of those options can be triggered only if WaMu's stock price rises significantly, that person said.

                      People close to the situation said Mr. Killinger would retire under the terms of his employment contract with no extra severance benefits. According to the most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing related to Mr. Killinger's compensation, he held 1.2 million shares of common stock as of Dec. 31, 2007, currently worth about $5.2 million. He also has $14.9 million in deferred compensation and $3.5 million in pension benefits, according to the filing.
                      Alan Fishman is an expert in selling off banks. He was at the helm of the Independence Community Bank and he got a very good price for it from Sovereign BankCorp. If he does the same for WaMu it would be a really bad day for Seattle, which lost the corporate Headquarters of Boeing and SafeCo, not to mention the utter loss of the Sonics team :(:(:(

                      Interestingly, this is what a former top executive at WaMu had to say about this ouster:
                      Lee Lannoye, a retired WaMu executive vice president and chief credit officer, said Sunday that while Killinger was WaMu's CEO, he wasn't directly responsible for the thrift's downfall.

                      Killinger stepped back from day-to-day management of the company years ago, said Lannoye. It was Chief Operating Officer Steve Rotella who directed WaMu's move into subprime mortgages, said Lannoye. "Rotella was the one who was running the bank. He's the one who should have said no and he didn't."

                      Killinger's successor still will have to clean house, Lannoye said: "This isn't going to solve all their problems."
                      We will probably be looking at a cleaning drive now at WaMu
                      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by donnie View Post
                        yes and no, "phony" FNMA in peticular had the unspoken guaratee of governemnt backing, this "privatised" former government program knew from day one that the government would never let it collapse. It was inherantly implied. The government made it a secondary mortgag monopoly, when it went private it didnt change that fact, to date they hold half the morgage market, this monopoly is a direct result from the manner in whcich it was created.
                        I tend to hate any kind of "unspoken guarantees", as they usually are not worth the paper they are written on.

                        In anycase, if this was the understanding, then the regulatory governance should have been even more strict. When you guarantee something with public money, you are playing with the wealth of the nation as a whole, not just of some private individuals
                        "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Will anything happen to the Heads and Boards of the Banks or will they go scot free?


                          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                          HAKUNA MATATA

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Ray View Post
                            Will anything happen to the Heads and Boards of the Banks or will they go scot free?
                            Depends on who's buying and how lenient they are on the size of their golden parachute.

                            Will they ever see the inside of a courtroom? Doubtful.

                            32-minute discussion on this and the aftermath from Charlie Rose's show: A discussion about the acquisition of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac - Charlie Rose

                            Take care to listen to Roubini, he's an economist and was pretty much the first guy that predicted all of this back in 2006, and has gotten it pretty much all right.

                            And for those Turks on here, take pride, he's your country's own. :))
                            Last edited by rj1; 10 Sep 08,, 01:58.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              My audio seems to be on the blink.

                              Floyd Norris, Mohamed El-Erian, Gretchen Morgenson, Nouriel Roubini are not from my country! ;)


                              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                              HAKUNA MATATA

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                rj1,

                                Thanks.

                                I got the audio going, but the stuff is demoralising and it sure will affect the world too!


                                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                                HAKUNA MATATA

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X