I heard someone say it was about 5% of all outstanding mortgages in the US,
but I don't know if that is accurate or not.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Maureen wrote:
> I don't think anyone knows where the 700 billion dollar number
> originated. Someone at Treasury was quoted as saying "we just
I don't think anyone knows where the 700 billion dollar number
originated. Someone at Treasury was quoted as saying "we just wanted
a really big number". The actual wording of the bill says UP TO 700
Billion, so it not like it will all be disbursed at once.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Judah
What's your opinion then on the math I laid out. It seems to me that if we
are discussing buying up defaulted mortgages then the amount needed
shouldn't be anywhere in the 700 billion range. Yet that number is what
everyone on capitol hill seems to be using (even if the democrats want to
get there
Nope. All my spare time is taken up by a very hot rock-n-roll guitar
player. Much more fun than writing software.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thqta might be fun actually. But yeah, it's not something you would do
> in your spare time.
~~
thqta might be fun actually. But yeah, it's not something you would do
in your spare time.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is very difficult, if not impossible, to put a value on risk in a
> pool of potentials that have no historical values to use for actuar
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to put a value on risk in a
pool of potentials that have no historical values to use for actuarial
calculations.
The math regarding derivatives is very complex, but the real problem
is that the data to perform the analysis doesn't exist, i.e. it is
impossib
interesting that you should ask that... most people say that it's
because nobody understands how to value derivatives.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What caused the $1 trillion credit derivatives default?
> Bad mortgages.
> So what was your point?
>
>
> On Wed,
I read the bill. It says mortgage based assets. Some attempts were
made to extend that to all debt, foreign or domestic Didn't happen.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you sure on that Maureen? I seem to recall it was originally listed as
> "mortgage
Are you sure on that Maureen? I seem to recall it was originally listed as
"mortgage-related securities" and was deliberately kept vague in Paulson's
proposal so that the Secretary would have broad authority to purchase where
he deemed it would do the most good (or just wanted to I suppose). Perhap
The point is that the proposed rescue bill would only cover mortgages,
not derivatives, so bantying about the 50 trillion dollar number as a
potential liability for US taxpayer is a scare tactic.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What caused the $1 trillion credit d
A mortgage is a contract between a lender and borrower backed by an
asset, the home. It is a loan against value
A credit derivative is a contract between the lender and another
entity, to cover the possibly that the mortgage borrower will default.
It is insurance against risk.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2
What caused the $1 trillion credit derivatives default?
Bad mortgages.
So what was your point?
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Credit derivatives are in the 50 Trillion range, not bad mortgages.
>
~
G Money wrote:
> Nope.
>
> I'm just making a reasonable assumption that a person WITH a job, is going
> to, generally speaking, have an easier time paying his or her mortgage, than
> a person WITHOUT a job.
I would counter that 'reasonable' assumption with the unfortunate
reality that many people
Nope.
I'm just making a reasonable assumption that a person WITH a job, is going
to, generally speaking, have an easier time paying his or her mortgage, than
a person WITHOUT a job.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is he? You have stats that show low income
> Mo wrote:
> Credit derivatives are in the 50 Trillion range, not bad mortgages.
>
Nobody understands that distinction.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
ht
Credit derivatives are in the 50 Trillion range, not bad mortgages.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jake wrote:
>> sub-prime/bad mortgage would be way more than $200B. Probably even more
>> than $700B.
>>
>
> I've heard the problem could be in the $35 tril
Is he? You have stats that show low income people have worst credit
ratings as a group than the middle class?
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:41 AM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's great, but your friend is the exception, not the rule.
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Maureen <[EMAIL PRO
Critical thinking?
Like listening to all advisers and choosing the one that you believe
will work even though it's not the popular choice?
Reminds me of the surge.
What did the other guy do? Sided with the masses and admitted he was
way wrong, then claimed he'd make the same major mistake again k
You know, Critical Thinking is a very rare skill.
The chances of several presidential candidates possessing it is even rarer.
Critical Thinkers are more likely to be advisors than actual candidates.
2008/10/1 Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Critical thinking clearly involves synthesis, evaluat
> gMoney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But you tell me: what have you learned from your voting mistakes and
>> what have you changed?
>>
>
> - Experience is overrated.
> - Campaign promises are useless.
> - Past performance is a decent indicato
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you tell me: what have you learned from your voting mistakes and
> what have you changed?
>
- Experience is overrated.
- Campaign promises are useless.
- Past performance is a decent indicator of future results.
- Stubbo
> RoMunn wrote:
> Bush is history. Move on - dot org, :-)
>
But he's not for you.
Because the decision making process that you used to conclude you
needed to vote for this walking disaster twice is likely still in
place.
But you tell me: what have you learned from your voting mistakes and
what h
> Jake wrote:
> sub-prime/bad mortgage would be way more than $200B. Probably even more
> than $700B.
>
I've heard the problem could be in the $35 trillion - $55 trillion range.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most imp
Jumbo sub-prime loans. Sub-prime loans which the value is more than Fannie
Mae and Freddie Macs limits.
A sub-prime loan for $400,000 in 2005, which in California was common as
dirt, would not have been bought by Fannie or Freddie. So, the total of
sub-prime/bad mortgage would be way more than $20
That's great, but your friend is the exception, not the rule.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Low income does not always equal not creditworthy. I have a friend
> who has been without a full time job for 5 years, but he pays his
> bills on time every month,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Gruss wrote:
> Look, Robert. If I voted twice for a guy who, after 8 years:
>
> But you've got to snap out of it. It's over. The guy's a fool and a
> failure.
>
Bush is history. Move on - dot org, :-)
>
> You've got an opportunity to reset here. It's not abou
> RoMunn wrote:
> Remember the long list of things the Bush Administration tried to do?
Nope, I don't remember a single thing.
Look, Robert. If I voted twice for a guy who, after 8 years:
* Left 2 ongoing wars no closer to the end than when he started
that've killed 5000 americans and wounded 5
> RoMunn wrote:
> I guess you missed this quote from Wikipedia:
>
> "Together they [Fannie and Freddie] have more than half of the $1 trillion
> of Alt-A mortgages."
>
(1.) forgot that wikipedia is omnipotent.
(2.) Alt-a is not just subprime.
(3.) The GSEs reported on June 30th that they held $
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
>
> What bills did Bush propose to solve that problem you perceive?
>
Remember the long list of things the Bush Administration tried to do? We
went over that territory already, including the 2005 Senate bill that McCain
co-sponsored.
~
> RoMunn wrote:
> In other words, nine years ago the NYTimes was already warning that the
> course of action that Democrats pushed Fannie and Freddie into pursuing
> could lead to a meltdown. Nine years!
>
Oo! Good! So Bush knew about it 9 years ago! Good, good.
Ok, and for 6 years, he control
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> So rather than repeat what Rush has told you, just think it through
> and ask basic questions:
>
For the eighteenth time, I don't listen to, read, or watch Rush Limbaugh,
and I never have.
> Now. If I follow your own numbers, both freddie and f
> RoMunn wrote:
> Securities backed by mortgages. Duh.
>
I guess you're not getting it and I don't blame you because it's far
from clear for anyone.
The point is, however, that the misinformation is flying fast and
furious and you're repeating it.
So rather than repeat what Rush has told you, ju
I remember it a little different.
They both supported the bailout.
McCain called several republicans, met with some and changed a few votes.
Obama went to an Obama rally, called no one and sent out a press
release saying he deserved credit for the bailout and McCain should
get no credit.
http://ww
the sham was the democratic contention that there ever was a deal.
On 9/30/08, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He has commented that you can get a lot more done when the cameras are
> off. And appears to be correct, because trhe deal fell apaprt when
> Mccain turf ed in tnot a photo op
>
> On Tu
He has commented that you can get a lot more done when the cameras are
off. And appears to be correct, because trhe deal fell apaprt when
Mccain turf ed in tnot a photo op
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> RoMunn wrote:
>> And once again, where is Obama in a
One minute you try to exonerate Fannie and Freddie, who bear direct
responsibility for this mess, and the next minute you want to blame it all
on Bush. You are the one who isn't thinking clearly.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Gruss wrote:
> >
> Derivatives caused the problem and it's possible
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Gruss wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > That is a dodge. Fannie and Freddie were holding guarantees on more than
> > $500 billion in Alt-A mortgages as of 2007. They didn't actually lend the
> > money themselves, oh no, but they guarantees the loans. Those guarantees,
Oh, never mind, I found Barack Obama hiding behind Nancy Pelosi's skirt.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Gruss wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > And once again, where is Obama in all this mess?
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8
> RoMunn wrote:
> And once again, where is Obama in all this mess?
Are we in a crisis? Do we need any action?
Because most of your President's party doesn't think so. And your
President and your candidate couldn't even get 1/3 of their party to
support them.
McCain doesn't seem to be able to l
> Jake wrote:
> That is incorrect. From Freddie Mac's website:
>
> http://www.freddiemac.com/news/archives/corporate/2007/20070227_subprimelend
> ing.html
>
This is why I hate this crap. Word games. Lobbyists. et al.
They can't buy sub-prime. These are securities.
~~
> RoMunn wrote:
> That is a dodge. Fannie and Freddie were holding guarantees on more than
> $500 billion in Alt-A mortgages as of 2007. They didn't actually lend the
> money themselves, oh no, but they guarantees the loans. Those guarantees, as
> we now know, were worthless.
SECURITIES!! NOT LO
> RoMunn wrote:
> That is a dodge. Fannie and Freddie were holding guarantees on more than
> $500 billion in Alt-A mortgages as of 2007.
Here's the thing, we can argue the term "sub-prime" all day. The
bottom line is, add it up.
$500B Fine. Double it. $1T.
Let's say they're ALL bad. So then
exactly.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Low income does not always equal not creditworthy. I have a friend
> who has been without a full time job for 5 years, but he pays his
> bills on time every month, and his credit score is over 800.
~~~
Last year, FM and FM had $160 billion dollars in sub prime mortgages...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/30/business/bxprime-web.php
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get
That is a dodge. Fannie and Freddie were holding guarantees on more than
$500 billion in Alt-A mortgages as of 2007. They didn't actually lend the
money themselves, oh no, but they guarantees the loans. Those guarantees, as
we now know, were worthless. Fannie and Feddie opened up the vaults at the
"Fannie & Freddie are prevented by law from making or buying sub-prime
loans."
That is incorrect. From Freddie Mac's website:
http://www.freddiemac.com/news/archives/corporate/2007/20070227_subprimelend
ing.html
They have bought subprime loans. And, they still do to this day except for
New York
> Jake wrote:
> "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
> under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
> mortgage loans among low and moderate income people
All of this is true, but the low-income loans are NOT sub-prime loans,
they are lo
Low income does not always equal not creditworthy. I have a friend
who has been without a full time job for 5 years, but he pays his
bills on time every month, and his credit score is over 800.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no, I have been hearing that in the
Warren Buffett is doing pretty good in the sub-prime market.
Foreclosures at his company are actually down this year. So perhaps
the problems are with the lenders and not the borrowers. It's just so
easy to scapegoat the poor.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/10/news/newsmakers/buffett_clayton.fortu
> gg wrote:
>
> Fannie & Freddie are prevented by law from making or buying sub-prime loans.
>
Ah, I've now read the Wiki and it's horribly misleading.
Fannie and Freddie are prevented by law from buying or guaranteeing
sub-prime. As the wiki states they were able to bend the rules to buy
"safe
no, I have been hearing that in the past week but that is BS. The
community reinvestment act has been around for years. I know I cited
it in an argument with a bank manager when I was turned down for a
loan oh gee... I don't remember what year but I can tell you that
Reagan was president. And the b
yes I have seen that. On the day it was bought out. No information --
they do not exist here. I liked them when I was a customer but thta
was 1999.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone else get the WaMu Free checking add?
>
> Sam wrote:
>> I found the video Y
> RoMunn wrote:
> The Democrats forced Fannie and Freddie to take on more and more
> speculative debt.
The answer to my question - what percentage of subprime loans did
Fannie & Freddie make - is, of course, 0%.
None.
Fannie & Freddie are prevented by law from making or buying sub-prime loans.
government rescue similar to that of the
savings and loan industry in the 1980's."
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:23 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: this is a good read.
What Democrats really said was, "St
Face it Bush screwed up:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Poorly thought-out government policy created the conditions for this mess.
> Sure, the markets did the actual damage- lending money to people who
> couldn'
And once again, where is Obama in all this mess? If this is such a national
crisis, why isn't he out in front on this issue? We're getting a preview of
what his handling of the crisis will be like if he gets elected, and so far,
it looks to me like we're still in the commercials, because the guy is
Poorly thought-out government policy created the conditions for this mess.
Sure, the markets did the actual damage- lending money to people who
couldn't afford it, but those loans would never have been approved under the
old rules. The Democrats forced Fannie and Freddie to take on more and more
sp
> RoMunn wrote:
> Gruss' explanation that Fannie and Freddie didn't make the loans is just an
> excuse.
If you're right, then you should easily be able to tell us what
percentage of the subprime loans Fannie and Freddie made to subprime
lenders?
So, tell us. Give us the numbers. What percentage
What Democrats really said was, "Start lending more money to people who
can't afford it or pay huge penalties." So what did Fannie and Freddie do?
Loosen the purse strings.
Gruss' explanation that Fannie and Freddie didn't make the loans is just an
excuse. They were specifically directed by Democr
Anyone else get the WaMu Free checking add?
Sam wrote:
> I found the video Youtube banned.
>
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wxmr_burning-down-the-house-what-caused_news
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> gMoney wrote:
>>> That's an awesome
I found the video Youtube banned.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wxmr_burning-down-the-house-what-caused_news
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> gMoney wrote:
>> That's an awesomely simple explanation of how both parties ideologies
>> contributed to t
> gMoney wrote:
> That's an awesomely simple explanation of how both parties ideologies
> contributed to this mess.
>
> Republicans: "De-regulate!"
> Democrats: "Please start lending to people who can't afford it!"
>
> Result?
>
The "it was frannies fault" argument is BS. They didn't make the
loa
I quarrel with the idea that the community reinvestment act equaled
loans to people who could not pay. Ditto Fannie Mae is not a horrible
idea -- just apparently a really badly implementens idea.
However these are nits. I am sure there is plenty of blame to go
around on both sides of the aisle and
That's an awesomely simple explanation of how both parties ideologies
contributed to this mess.
Republicans: "De-regulate!"
Democrats: "Please start lending to people who can't afford it!"
Result?
KABOOOM!
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/
A libertarian? Talking sense? Never! ;)
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
>
> i understand why it sucked to have this bailout!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
i understand why it sucked to have this bailout!
-- tony
Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.
-- siddhartha gautama
~~~
66 matches
Mail list logo
