"60 Minutes" - Forged mortgage documents

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Canada is a rare exception.
To repeat, SOX was dumped on us in the aftermath of Enron. It's a pain in the ass to comply with ...

I'll admit I don't know much about SOX, but I think sometimes simple straightforward regulation is passed over in favor of needlessly complex systems that just "feed the lawyers" to find ways around the rules. I believe the major reason why Canada escaped the financial meltdown is that lenders have to hold on to their mortgages for a period of time before they can sell them to another lender. If you know you have to hold a mortgage for a couple of years, you will do the due diligence to make sure the borrower can pay. If you know the mortgage will be someone else's problem before the ink is even dry, and that you will make a commission both at the closing and when you sell it off to someone else, why would you care if the borrower can make the payments? Two years before you can sell the mortgage (even one year would be sufficient!); simple and effective. Canada also has a wider range of mortgage products, including 40 and even 50 year mortgages. Lower payments, as so little principle comes off, but a great return for the lender over the lifetime of the loan.

Don

Hopefully after this mess, such a reg as that would not be necessary.

I sure miss the days of caveat emptor and accountability...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,111]

>Hopefully after this mess, such a reg as that would not be necessary.

I think it's even MORE necessary. The people who wrote really bad mortgages and then managed to sell off the debt before the crash made billions. Who doesn't want to make billions?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

China and India did pretty good.

Sort of. You should check their inflation rates. And if you're a worker in China, is your life any different from that of Jurgis in the Jungle?

How did Europe manage?

Quote

Quote

Canada is a rare exception. It's also a small(ish) economy that exports oil.

Canada's economy ranks anywhere from 8th to 12th in the world, dependent on measurement used.

So basically it's California, you mean. But with oil (California 80 years ago).

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Hopefully after this mess, such a reg as that would not be necessary.

I think it's even MORE necessary. The people who wrote really bad mortgages and then managed to sell off the debt before the crash made billions. Who doesn't want to make billions?

well, the buyers of those mortgages might take greater care, or not listen to ratings agencies that clearly failed. Or they could have contracts that involve claw backs if a threshold percentage of those loans fail.

I don't think we need government regulation to fix this, necessarily. People will demand higher rates or better insurance to buy unreliable money vehicles.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Hopefully after this mess, such a reg as that would not be necessary.

I think it's even MORE necessary. The people who wrote really bad mortgages and then managed to sell off the debt before the crash made billions. Who doesn't want to make billions?

It really depends on the financial and legal reprecussions they may or may not end up facing AKA "if they get away with it."

Seeing people that were living the high life for a few years then losing it all including their freedom if laws were also broken sure would be likely to deter others more than additional regulations.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

>Hopefully after this mess, such a reg as that would not be necessary.

I think it's even MORE necessary. The people who wrote really bad mortgages and then managed to sell off the debt before the crash made billions. Who doesn't want to make billions?

well, the buyers of those mortgages might take greater care, or not listen to ratings agencies that clearly failed. Or they could have contracts that involve claw backs if a threshold percentage of those loans fail.

I don't think we need government regulation to fix this, necessarily. People will demand higher rates or better insurance to buy unreliable money vehicles.

They were demanding those things before the gov't said it would insure them all. Once risk was removed, what was the incentive to not?

Not to mention they were being regulated to do x% of those types of loans and were being fined/sued if non compliant...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>Hopefully after this mess, such a reg as that would not be necessary.

I think it's even MORE necessary. The people who wrote really bad mortgages and then managed to sell off the debt before the crash made billions. Who doesn't want to make billions?

It really depends on the financial and legal reprecussions they may or may not end up facing AKA "if they get away with it."

Seeing people that were living the high life for a few years then losing it all including their freedom if laws were also broken sure would be likely to deter others more than additional regulations.

Those in the financial industry.. will seek to have no regulations at all... so the next round of get rich quick asssholes can gin up the next great thing to use to bilk BILLIONS or TRILLIO)NS from Main Street again...

Yeah... lets turn over all of SS to them to... especially since we just turned over the whole health insurance industry to the same idiots... that sounds like a GREAT IDEA

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Hopefully after this mess, such a reg as that would not be necessary.

I think it's even MORE necessary. The people who wrote really bad mortgages and then managed to sell off the debt before the crash made billions. Who doesn't want to make billions?

It really depends on the financial and legal reprecussions they may or may not end up facing AKA "if they get away with it."

Seeing people that were living the high life for a few years then losing it all including their freedom if laws were also broken sure would be likely to deter others more than additional regulations.

Those in the financial industry.. will seek to have no regulations at all... so the next round of get rich quick asssholes can gin up the next great thing to use to bilk BILLIONS or TRILLIO)NS from Main Street again...

Yeah... lets turn over all of SS to them to... especially since we just turned over the whole health insurance industry to the same idiots... that sounds like a GREAT IDEA

If we turn it over, we turn it all and don't let them pick and choose like we're doing currently.

Healthcare would become all private. Medicaid and Medicare would no longer exist. No gov't subsidy or assistance for care but they still have to support everyone, not just the profitable.

Turn over all the IOU's in SS to private companies. Once again, they now have to provide retirement AND disability income for all Americans.

The industries would never want that because they know it's not sustainable. They righfully only want the profitable parts which they're getting more and more of.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Hopefully after this mess, such a reg as that would not be necessary.

I think it's even MORE necessary. The people who wrote really bad mortgages and then managed to sell off the debt before the crash made billions. Who doesn't want to make billions?

It really depends on the financial and legal reprecussions they may or may not end up facing AKA "if they get away with it."

Seeing people that were living the high life for a few years then losing it all including their freedom if laws were also broken sure would be likely to deter others more than additional regulations.

Those in the financial industry.. will seek to have no regulations at all... so the next round of get rich quick asssholes can gin up the next great thing to use to bilk BILLIONS or TRILLIO)NS from Main Street again...

Yeah... lets turn over all of SS to them to... especially since we just turned over the whole health insurance industry to the same idiots... that sounds like a GREAT IDEA

If we turn it over, we turn it all and don't let them pick and choose like we're doing currently.

Healthcare would become all private. Medicaid and Medicare would no longer exist. No gov't subsidy or assistance for care but they still have to support everyone, not just the profitable.

Turn over all the IOU's in SS to private companies. Once again, they now have to provide retirement AND disability income for all Americans.

The industries would never want that because they know it's not sustainable. They righfully only want the profitable parts which they're getting more and more of.

The idea that the usual suspects want to get rid of ANY and ALL "entitlement" programs really is the bottom line... you DO know why those were put in place.. right????

I guess conservatives want to go back to that golden time in humanity where the sick and old were supposed to just wander off into the forest never to be seen again... out of sight.. out of mind.. and hopefully far enough away not to stink up the place too badly.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yeah... lets turn over all of SS to them to... especially since we just turned over the whole health insurance industry to the same idiots... that sounds like a GREAT IDEA

would industry be any more irresponsible with SS than our current government, which just cut our payroll taxes by 2% for no reason other than to appease the voters?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Yeah... lets turn over all of SS to them to... especially since we just turned over the whole health insurance industry to the same idiots... that sounds like a GREAT IDEA

would industry be any more irresponsible with SS than our current government, which just cut our payroll taxes by 2% for no reason other than to appease the voters?

Cutting ANY taxes while we have this amount of CRUSHING dept.. is GOAT FUCK STUPID.. just like it was when George the Decider did it... We as a country lost that chance... to actually control this.. but too many of George and Barry's benefactors are making a KILLING off the American people. The 1% are looking out for themselves only... screw the rest... of America... I am making an investment in a future where I will be living quite comfortably.... while all of those fuckers get the payback they so richly deserve.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

The idea that the usual suspects want to get rid of ANY and ALL "entitlement" programs really is the bottom line... you DO know why those were put in place.. right????

I guess conservatives want to go back to that golden time in humanity where the sick and old were supposed to just wander off into the forest never to be seen again... out of sight.. out of mind.. and hopefully far enough away not to stink up the place too badly.

I know what the original intention of them was, before they were exploited and others factors changed which made them non sustainable.

Do you know why health insurance is generally tied to one's employment as well as other non pay benefits?

Yes, the days of personal responsibility and accountability/consequence for ones actions/inactions were so horrid. Everyone (companies included) looking to the government for everything is far better, some have been doing so for multiple generations now.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

The idea that the usual suspects want to get rid of ANY and ALL "entitlement" programs really is the bottom line... you DO know why those were put in place.. right????

I guess conservatives want to go back to that golden time in humanity where the sick and old were supposed to just wander off into the forest never to be seen again... out of sight.. out of mind.. and hopefully far enough away not to stink up the place too badly.

I know what the original intention of them was, before they were exploited and others factors changed which made them non sustainable.

Do you know why health insurance is generally tied to one's employment as well as other non pay benefits?

Yes, the days of personal responsibility and accountability/consequence for ones actions/inactions were so horrid. Everyone (companies included) looking to the government for everything is far better, some have been doing so for multiple generations now.

Do you reallllly want to have a VOUCHER... for a few hundred dollars to give to YOUR "insurance company" . They are the ones who WILL not insure the OLD or the POOR already.... no profits to be made. Now they have expanded that pool of PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS even further.. to include.. your shit flying

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The idea that the usual suspects want to get rid of ANY and ALL "entitlement" programs really is the bottom line... you DO know why those were put in place.. right????

I guess conservatives want to go back to that golden time in humanity where the sick and old were supposed to just wander off into the forest never to be seen again... out of sight.. out of mind.. and hopefully far enough away not to stink up the place too badly.

I know what the original intention of them was, before they were exploited and others factors changed which made them non sustainable.

Do you know why health insurance is generally tied to one's employment as well as other non pay benefits?

Yes, the days of personal responsibility and accountability/consequence for ones actions/inactions were so horrid. Everyone (companies included) looking to the government for everything is far better, some have been doing so for multiple generations now.

Do you reallllly want to have a VOUCHER... for a few hundred dollars to give to YOUR "insurance company" . They are the ones who WILL not insure the OLD or the POOR already.... no profits to be made. Now they have expanded that pool of PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS even further.. to include.. your shit flying

Did you ever think that the reason they exclude so many is because anyone they exclude invariably the gov't picks up if the person can't afford to pay?

If there was not that safety net for them or others things would be very different less than a generation or so. Either public outcry and negative PR would force them to change their practices, private charities would take over caring for them, or if noone really gave a shit about those people they'd either learn to fend for themselves or die trying, either way creating more self sustainable people and reducing greatly the numbers in poverty.

The gov't keeps coming to the rescue. While appreciated af first it quickly leads to expected, needed, then demanded.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The idea that the usual suspects want to get rid of ANY and ALL "entitlement" programs really is the bottom line... you DO know why those were put in place.. right????

I guess conservatives want to go back to that golden time in humanity where the sick and old were supposed to just wander off into the forest never to be seen again... out of sight.. out of mind.. and hopefully far enough away not to stink up the place too badly.

I know what the original intention of them was, before they were exploited and others factors changed which made them non sustainable.

Do you know why health insurance is generally tied to one's employment as well as other non pay benefits?

Yes, the days of personal responsibility and accountability/consequence for ones actions/inactions were so horrid. Everyone (companies included) looking to the government for everything is far better, some have been doing so for multiple generations now.

Do you reallllly want to have a VOUCHER... for a few hundred dollars to give to YOUR "insurance company" . They are the ones who WILL not insure the OLD or the POOR already.... no profits to be made. Now they have expanded that pool of PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS even further.. to include.. your shit flying

Did you ever think that the reason they exclude so many is because anyone they exclude invariably the gov't picks up if the person can't afford to pay?

If there was not that safety net for them or others things would be very different less than a generation or so. Either public outcry and negative PR would force them to change their practices, private charities would take over caring for them, or if noone really gave a shit about those people they'd either learn to fend for themselves or die trying, either way creating more self sustainable people and reducing greatly the numbers in poverty.

The gov't keeps coming to the rescue. While appreciated af first it quickly leads to expected, needed, then demanded.

Yet you are on the bandwagon that wishes to eliminate any such program and replace it with SQUAT.. and HOPE that some charity .... yeah.. good luck with that shit.

What a great way to run a FIRST WORLD country.... into being just another THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE...

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The idea that the usual suspects want to get rid of ANY and ALL "entitlement" programs really is the bottom line... you DO know why those were put in place.. right????

I guess conservatives want to go back to that golden time in humanity where the sick and old were supposed to just wander off into the forest never to be seen again... out of sight.. out of mind.. and hopefully far enough away not to stink up the place too badly.

I know what the original intention of them was, before they were exploited and others factors changed which made them non sustainable.

Do you know why health insurance is generally tied to one's employment as well as other non pay benefits?

Yes, the days of personal responsibility and accountability/consequence for ones actions/inactions were so horrid. Everyone (companies included) looking to the government for everything is far better, some have been doing so for multiple generations now.

Do you reallllly want to have a VOUCHER... for a few hundred dollars to give to YOUR "insurance company" . They are the ones who WILL not insure the OLD or the POOR already.... no profits to be made. Now they have expanded that pool of PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS even further.. to include.. your shit flying

Did you ever think that the reason they exclude so many is because anyone they exclude invariably the gov't picks up if the person can't afford to pay?

If there was not that safety net for them or others things would be very different less than a generation or so. Either public outcry and negative PR would force them to change their practices, private charities would take over caring for them, or if noone really gave a shit about those people they'd either learn to fend for themselves or die trying, either way creating more self sustainable people and reducing greatly the numbers in poverty.

The gov't keeps coming to the rescue. While appreciated af first it quickly leads to expected, needed, then demanded.

Yet you are on the bandwagon that wishes to eliminate any such program and replace it with SQUAT.. and HOPE that some charity .... yeah.. good luck with that shit.

What a great way to run a FIRST WORLD country.... into being just another THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE...

How do you propose to deal with the issue? If nothing is done we will all become a THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE as OUR CURRENT CHOICES AND DIRECTION ARE NONSUSTAINABLE.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,111]

>Seeing people that were living the high life for a few years then losing it all
>including their freedom if laws were also broken sure would be likely to deter others
>more than additional regulations.

I don't think that's true overall. Have the very public disasters that Hollywood stars go through deterred people from wanting to be actors? Have the large number of successful malpractice suits deterred people from being doctors? Did the collapse of Enron deter companies from trading energy?

I think in all those cases, people think "well, those are examples of people being stupid; I won't be like that. And look! This guy made three billion dollars. That could have been me."

I mean, a huge percentage of people still go to Vegas to try to win money and play the Lottery. They don't see the losses - they see the big winners and want to be like them. Compared to that, gambling on risky collateralized debt instruments is downright intelligent.

People have been participating in this sort of "irrational exuberance" since the Tulip Mania of the 1600's. During those 400 years, they've had all the evidence they need that bubbles collapse and risky investments are, well, risky. They keep doing it. I have a feeling they're not going to change now, unless they're forced to.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Seeing people that were living the high life for a few years then losing it all
>including their freedom if laws were also broken sure would be likely to deter others
>more than additional regulations.

I don't think that's true overall. Have the very public disasters that Hollywood stars go through deterred people from wanting to be actors? Have the large number of successful malpractice suits deterred people from being doctors? Did the collapse of Enron deter companies from trading energy?

I think in all those cases, people think "well, those are examples of people being stupid; I won't be like that. And look! This guy made three billion dollars. That could have been me."

I mean, a huge percentage of people still go to Vegas to try to win money and play the Lottery. They don't see the losses - they see the big winners and want to be like them. Compared to that, gambling on risky collateralized debt instruments is downright intelligent.

People have been participating in this sort of "irrational exuberance" since the Tulip Mania of the 1600's. During those 400 years, they've had all the evidence they need that bubbles collapse and risky investments are, well, risky. They keep doing it. I have a feeling they're not going to change now, unless they're forced to.

How many of those famous individuals that you mentioned above ever really did lose it all, including their freedom? Usually they get fined some and a slap on the wrist.

Thinking one can regulate away greed and force intelligence is assinine. The issues is not regulations it's the lack of consequences for their decisions.

It's basically this:
Someone gives you $10,000 and will give you whatevever you make from it every time you profit PLUS will eat all losses. As you have no risk, why not go for the most you can make? Eventually you'll probably lose all their money but you're so far ahead, who cares?
So the next time they give you the money they may add a few rules which you find a way around, profit, lose it all, more rules.

The person can either keep adding more rules foolishly hoping they can eventually control the person or even better hold them fully accountable for any losses.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

How do you propose to deal with the issue? If nothing is done we will all become a THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE as OUR CURRENT CHOICES AND DIRECTION ARE NONSUSTAINABLE.

You COULD have started by rolling back all the GOAT FUCK STUPID tax cuts to mollify the 1% who have all the fucking money and dissasociate yourself from their TRUE BELIEVERS who are completely fucking delusional in thinking that the VOO DOO DOO economics they wallow in is sound fiscal responsibility.

Instead.. you want MORE OF THE SAME... DUUUUUUDE you know what they say about doing the same stupid shit... and then expecting different results... right???

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

How do you propose to deal with the issue? If nothing is done we will all become a THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE as OUR CURRENT CHOICES AND DIRECTION ARE NONSUSTAINABLE.

You COULD have started by rolling back all the GOAT FUCK STUPID tax cuts to mollify the 1% who have all the fucking money and dissasociate yourself from their TRUE BELIEVERS who are completely fucking delusional in thinking that the VOO DOO DOO economics they wallow in is sound fiscal responsibility.

Instead.. you want MORE OF THE SAME... DUUUUUUDE you know what they say about doing the same stupid shit... and then expecting different results... right???

I completely agree with rolling back tax cuts AND raising taxes across the board as long as spending is drastically cut in ALL areas.

I definitely don't want more of the same as the policies from both the Republican and Democratic party as well as "bleeding hearts" are what got us into this mess.

I still contend that it was not as much the trickle down aspects that sunk us, it was more increasing gov't spending. I haven't viewed the numbers but I'd be interested to see just how much actual tax revenue was created/lost after implementing as we all know the budget defecit increase.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,111]

>How many of those famous individuals that you mentioned above ever
>really did lose it all, including their freedom?

Very few. In fact, most of the people who "lose it all" just lose all their money.

>Usually they get fined some and a slap on the wrist.

Usually not even that. Is failing miserably a Federal crime?

>Thinking one can regulate away greed and force intelligence is assinine.

Agreed. You can never regulate away greed. You can, however:

-make the more dangerous manifestations (theft, fraud) illegal
-require businesses to be transparent in their dealings so other people can better judge their risk
-require safeguards on the more risky investment practices

>The person can either keep adding more rules foolishly hoping they can eventually
>control the person or even better hold them fully accountable for any losses.

"Holding them accountable" won't do much if your goal is to prevent bubbles like this one. If the investment banker in the example above spends 15 years making 10% returns for his clients, they're going to be very eager to give them all their money. After all, he has proven himself. When it all comes crashing down and they lose everything, it's too late to "hold him accountable" - the money's gone. Sure, you can put him in jail, but that doesn't solve the problem.

Fast forward another 15 years, and there's a new investment banker making tons of money with a new set of clients. Sure, their parents can say "you dumb kids! You're gonna lose it all with your foolish investing schemes!" But it will take another disaster for the newbies to learn THAT lesson, and in the meantime they're making huge amounts of money.

Like I said before, this has been going on for 400 years. Think they'll learn more in the next 400?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>How many of those famous individuals that you mentioned above ever
>really did lose it all, including their freedom?

Very few. In fact, most of the people who "lose it all" just lose all their money.

>Usually they get fined some and a slap on the wrist.

Usually not even that. Is failing miserably a Federal crime?

>Thinking one can regulate away greed and force intelligence is assinine.

Agreed. You can never regulate away greed. You can, however:

-make the more dangerous manifestations (theft, fraud) illegal
-require businesses to be transparent in their dealings so other people can better judge their risk
-require safeguards on the more risky investment practices

>The person can either keep adding more rules foolishly hoping they can eventually
>control the person or even better hold them fully accountable for any losses.

"Holding them accountable" won't do much if your goal is to prevent bubbles like this one. If the investment banker in the example above spends 15 years making 10% returns for his clients, they're going to be very eager to give them all their money. After all, he has proven himself. When it all comes crashing down and they lose everything, it's too late to "hold him accountable" - the money's gone. Sure, you can put him in jail, but that doesn't solve the problem.

Fast forward another 15 years, and there's a new investment banker making tons of money with a new set of clients. Sure, their parents can say "you dumb kids! You're gonna lose it all with your foolish investing schemes!" But it will take another disaster for the newbies to learn THAT lesson, and in the meantime they're making huge amounts of money.

Like I said before, this has been going on for 400 years. Think they'll learn more in the next 400?

You missed the point, the person giving the money and taking away all risk was not an investor, it was the government as they have done repeatedly.

I don't have issue with people making or losing money in bubbles. I do have issue with the gov't trying to foolishly control and manipulate those bubbles.

It used to be those companies that took more risk had more to lose. Now if they're big enough they can just get bailed out.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,111]

>I do have issue with the gov't trying to foolishly control and manipulate those bubbles.

I don't have an issue with government regulation to prevent practices (like opaque CDS trading or unlimited margin trading) that can cause market crashes. I do agree with you that bailouts only make the problem worse, though.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>I do have issue with the gov't trying to foolishly control and manipulate those bubbles.

I don't have an issue with government regulation to prevent practices (like opaque CDS trading or unlimited margin trading) that can cause market crashes. I do agree with you that bailouts only make the problem worse, though.

You're forgetting the nature of rules though.
If one thinks a rule is unjust:
* they will likely ignore it. So now you need people to enforce it.
* Once these enforcers catch someone, now you need to porive they did it.
* Once you prove it you now need a penalty
* If people keep doing it you may need a stronger penalty as a deterrent.

Additionally others might just find a way around it, possibly something even more risky than the rule was supposed to protect against.

It's a shell game and the gov't is always going to be playing catch up. I'd be willing to bet that even before the gov't started cracking down on existing practices, most companies already either had new ones in mind that they used their lobbyists to get loopholes added to the latest rules...

It's sorta like trying to regulate morality, such as the war on drugs. How's that going again?

Economic policy is a far better tool of control than regs/laws ever will be. Processes that are more risky/unknown, assign higher transactional taxes to, the less risk, the less tax.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,111]

>It's sorta like trying to regulate morality, such as the war on drugs. How's that going again?

Lousy, cause they tried to outlaw it - doesn't work. (And if you tried to outlaw capitalism, that wouldn't work either.) Heck, they tried it with alcohol and it didn't work.

Now, how about the 'war against drunk driving?' Going pretty well, because they are simply trying to regulate drinking, not outlaw it.