SkyDekker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    21,691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. SkyDekker
    That's voluntary behaviour by the financial insitutions. The claim here relates to forced lending practices, which really only relates to the CRA.
  2. SkyDekker
    The studies that formed the basis of the CRA would suggest otherwise. They showed pretty systematic behaviour. White couples got better terms than non-white couples.
  3. SkyDekker
    Only if they can do it profitably, or they would stick in an area in which they can make profits.
  4. SkyDekker
    Of course they have federal oversight. I stated that they are not governed by the CRA. It is the CRA that "forced" depository institutions to do business in certain neighbourhoods. Non-depository institutions were/are simply not part of the CRA. Further, there is some evidence out there stating that CRA mortgages did not perform any worse than conventional mortgages or other subprime mortgages.
  5. SkyDekker
    Right, but we are talking about supposed forced risk taking for part of an industry. Your example has absolutely nothing to do with that. It would be like the government forcing WalMart to do 25% of their business in low income neighbourhoods and then other retailers voluntarily follow suit.
  6. SkyDekker
    News stories on the internet, well that settles it then. Do you still have those links? Would like to see the evidence that I am sure is quoted in these news stories.
  7. SkyDekker
    On all depository institutions. There are many, many, many mortgages being written by non-depository institutions. As a matter of fact they wrote about 50% of those subprime mortgages and are simply not governed or encumbered by the CRA.
  8. SkyDekker
    Let me get this straight. Fed.gov forced state chartered banks to take on loans that were too risky. Then other financial institutions followed suit and voluntarily took on bad risk to be competitive? That is your suggestion?
  9. SkyDekker
    Except that roughly 50% of sub-prime mortgages were issued by non-CRA governed independent-mortgage companies. (A further third or so where issued by financial institutions only partially governed by the CRA) By the end of 2009 a majority of commerical real estate loans were "upside down". Commercial real easte loans are not governed by CRA, but are part of subsequent derivatives. Banks could have also adjusted their corporate risk profiles. The problem is that through opaque derivatives institutions held incredible amounts of risk, without the ability to measure the risk, or rights to an offsetting asset. The trade in those derivatives got larger, but it needed a constant stream of "product" to keep it going. In this particular case that product was mortgages.
  10. SkyDekker
    We already knew your stance on guns in general. But when you post articles related to specific sub-issues, it isn't always clear.
  11. SkyDekker
    Local population benefits from the tourist industry as well. And, as of today, Cubans are allowed to buy and sell second hand cars without government approval. Hope somebody had the camera ready to record these first little capitalist steps.
  12. SkyDekker
    Then explain it if you understand it so well.
  13. SkyDekker
    That's not an explanation. Those emoticons you use remind me of people who laugh when they don't understand a joke....
  14. SkyDekker
    Bullshit. The government, elected by the taxpayers, sets the budget for the Royal Family and controls the purse strings.
  15. SkyDekker
    If you think I missed the point, why don't you explain it.
  16. SkyDekker
    I disagree. Mortgage derivatives caused the creation of mortgages destined to fail. In my humble opinion the problem resides with exotic derivatives that are not regulated and more importantly that people do not know how to value the derivative. Credit default swaps and other mortgage derivatives created an artificial market for mortgages. Didn't matter what the underlying basics where, or if the mortgages were in any way solid. The derivates market is largely unregulated and cannot be independently valued. Trading in entities you do not understand is never a good idea, yet it happens in the trillions of dollars. It is pure gambling.
  17. SkyDekker
    John, nice to see you put your own opinion with something you post. I agree that it is a stupid idea. (Even my kids are allowed to be a little petulant when they first start behaving as they were told to)
  18. SkyDekker
    According to the website of The Royal Household they employ approximately 1,200 people, of which 450 are funded by the taxpayer. Looks like they are providing something. You do make a pretty solid argument in favour of Estate Taxes though. Why indeed should people keep their wealth if they aren't doing anything and just won the "genetic lottery"...
  19. SkyDekker
    I think most people with basic reading comprehension skills can figure out my "meh" and "whatever" were in a sentence responding to your off topic comment regarding my supposed hatred of the United States. In that case, you indeed "don't know what the fuck you are talking about". The rest is an argument you are creating by yourself. Never claimed teh rules were identical, my post above and quoted by you pretty clearly indicates where I see the parallel.
  20. SkyDekker
    I see the parallel as far as breaking government bans on information. That's about it. As far as your assumption about my hatred regarding the US. Meh, whatever helps you sleep at night.
  21. SkyDekker
    Interesting comment, since many Americans wanted Assange killed for providing links to unsanctioned information.
  22. SkyDekker
    I agree. However, there are limits to this position as well. I am sure you would not support 1 family in the US to hold 99.99% of the wealth. So, the main question is, where is that line were it goes from acceptable to unacceptable? refer to title of thread
  23. SkyDekker
    QFT
  24. SkyDekker
    I agree. However, there are limits to this position as well. I am sure you would not support 1 family in the US to hold 99.99% of the wealth. So, the main question is, where is that line were it goes from acceptable to unacceptable?
  25. SkyDekker
    Pretty sure debt against asset is a write off. Also would seem a fair bit of this is just poor estate planning. Not arguing pro or con an estate tax, but there seems to be a lot of (deliberate?) misinformation being thrown about.