Housing crisis

[Robert A Whit]

From my vantage point, when some speak of the housing crisis and what took place and try to point fingers at the guilty, one has to see the problem as if it is the elephant.

Some want to speak of the trunk as being the problem. Supposedly the trunk did not do it right and of course that ignores that it was the elephant in charge.
Others want the tusks blamed or the tail.

My video describes the elephant and explains why allo this happened to begin with.

Was it caused by greed?

Define Greed and name names and then we can discuss greed. But that is the tail and not the elephant.

Federal regulations then and still on the books created the problem.

Those who watched my video play out learned how it happened.

When you have the SEC ruling that stupid things are not only legal but have the framework to make it take place, ignoring the elephant to discuss the tusks makes no sense to me.

Consider that my synopsis for what happened. I call the elephant Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Fmr-HUD-Economist-Fannie-amp-Freddie-To-Blame-for-Financial-Crisis/10737431085-1/

[tailfins]

What about the Community Reinvestment Act that made banks loan money to the unqualified?

[Robert A Whit]

What about the Community Reinvestment Act that made banks loan money to the unqualified?

Being in the housing loan business for a very long time, I can speak to that point. Carter was president when it passed. We did not see major problems until about 2007/08

When Clinton was president, in TX there was a major case decided in favor of minorities and that once FNMA essentially decided to be the major player in the subprimes, by enforcing rules of their own making, the die was cast.

It was how the act was later implemented rather than the act since the act had no rules preventing lenders from loaning to those who had a FICO score of at least 670. It got so bad that after trhe TX case FICO scores as low as 500 were being approved.

As a lender, I felt a moral duty to not involve my clients in shaky loans. If they persisted in wanting them, despite it could cost me income, I gave them information and told them all that they were likely to lose the home if they proceeded. And most of them lost the home. I got paid but they lost the home. It was sad. But the loan program existed since FNMA approved it and marketed it.

[fj1200]

... it was the elephant in charge.

The elephant walks in the Federal Reserve's forest.

[Robert A Whit]

Actually the Federal Reserve plays only a very minor role in home loans.

Some think if the Reserve cuts interest rates, home loans must follow. But the cash from the Feds is not put into housing. Banks were a minor player in home loans. Some assume banks were a major player but in the real world of home loans, they play only a small role.

If you have not worked with home loans, full time, for many years, no doubt you don't understand the actual way FNMA works.

[fj1200]

^:facepalm99: You still only see the world through the lens of home loans. :rolleyes:

[Robert A Whit]

^:facepalm99: You still only see the world through the lens of home loans. :rolleyes:

That is not true. I first learned finance in the ordinary business market. It was only when i got into the home business that I then had to learn how home loans actually work.

Since I am talking of the housing market crash that brought down the rest, I can speak of that cause.

FYI, I learned commercial finance in the late 1960s and housing finance from 1971 forward.

[Robert A Whit]

Watch the progressive who is not in the business give reasons and pretend that FNMA was the victim yet the person who was in the businesxs gave us the truth. (10 minute PBS video)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june10/fannie_04-09.html

[aboutime]

From my vantage point, when some speak of the housing crisis and what took place and try to point fingers at the guilty, one has to see the problem as if it is the elephant.

Some want to speak of the trunk as being the problem. Supposedly the trunk did not do it right and of course that ignores that it was the elephant in charge.
Others want the tusks blamed or the tail.

My video describes the elephant and explains why allo this happened to begin with.

Was it caused by greed?

Define Greed and name names and then we can discuss greed. But that is the tail and not the elephant.

Federal regulations then and still on the books created the problem.

Those who watched my video play out learned how it happened.

When you have the SEC ruling that stupid things are not only legal but have the framework to make it take place, ignoring the elephant to discuss the tusks makes no sense to me.

Consider that my synopsis for what happened. I call the elephant Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Fmr-HUD-Economist-Fannie-amp-Freddie-To-Blame-for-Financial-Crisis/10737431085-1/




Robert. You just don't get it here. You are talking to the choir. We all know what you are insisting, and most all of us agree with you.

So. Why are you the only one not listening to the rest of us????

[Kathianne]

Being in the housing loan business for a very long time, I can speak to that point. Carter was president when it passed. We did not see major problems until about 2007/08

When Clinton was president, in TX there was a major case decided in favor of minorities and that once FNMA essentially decided to be the major player in the subprimes, by enforcing rules of their own making, the die was cast.

It was how the act was later implemented rather than the act since the act had no rules preventing lenders from loaning to those who had a FICO score of at least 670. It got so bad that after trhe TX case FICO scores as low as 500 were being approved.

As a lender, I felt a moral duty to not involve my clients in shaky loans. If they persisted in wanting them, despite it could cost me income, I gave them information and told them all that they were likely to lose the home if they proceeded. And most of them lost the home. I got paid but they lost the home. It was sad. But the loan program existed since FNMA approved it and marketed it.

Bubbles do not inflate overnight. Indeed under Clinton, via Cisneros pressure was brought to bear under CRA to force bank loans to moderate income people, without the credit ratings or the experience to understand the costs of owning a home. If the lenders failed to have enough CRA loans, they'd be denied merger approvals. Within a couple years, spread to subprime mortgages.

Then under the National Homeownership Strategy, unscrupulous practices that could only be called, 'bad loans' were encouraged, in the name of getting 'everyone in the American Dream.' Obviously within years, this would become everyone's nightmare.

Yes, Fannie and Freddie were highly misused, from without and within. Bush tried to reign them in, he lost.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert. You just don't get it here. You are talking to the choir. We all know what you are insisting, and most all of us agree with you.

So. Why are you the only one not listening to the rest of us????

So, you worked full time in real estate in a number of positions for 40 years and I am the one not listening?

I reply to all of your posts on this topic. I am reading not hearing.

Tell me this, do you believe that FNMA caused the problem?

[aboutime]

So, you worked full time in real estate in a number of positions for 40 years and I am the one not listening?

I reply to all of your posts on this topic. I am reading not hearing.

Tell me this, do you believe that FNMA caused the problem?


ROBERT. Who the hell are you talking to, or about?

I never worked full time in real estate. Unless you count the watery real estate of the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranian sea.
Last time I checked. I retired from 30 years in the uniform of the U.S. Navy. And never sold an inch of real estate...ever.

[Robert A Whit]

Bubbles do not inflate overnight. Indeed under Clinton, via Cisneros pressure was brought to bear under CRA to force bank loans to moderate income people, without the credit ratings or the experience to understand the costs of owning a home. If the lenders failed to have enough CRA loans, they'd be denied merger approvals. Within a couple years, spread to subprime mortgages.

Then under the National Homeownership Strategy, unscrupulous practices that could only be called, 'bad loans' were encouraged, in the name of getting 'everyone in the American Dream.' Obviously within years, this would become everyone's nightmare.

Yes, Fannie and Freddie were highly misused, from without and within. Bush tried to reign them in, he lost.

I really am trying to avoid talking of this bubble as you call it. But of course you are correct. A court case in TX is what really caused much of the problems if you want to get back to the actual root. So Government was the cause in that context as you claim. See, when I started out with the loan business, only the Government had subprime loans and those were handled by FHA for the most part but VA loans were notorious for favoring the vet with bad credit provided he could come up with a decent excuse. Even those loans which often went into foreclosure did not result in the train wreck we now pay for.

You may want to find out who made the rules we all had to follow.

I keep telling you all that FNMA made the rules.

Do you believe in this idea? He who has the gold makes the rules?

FNMA made a corporate decision by 1998 to get into this big time. Sure when they set the rules up so that all sorts of hanky pankey took place, it was taken advantage of. But it was their rules.

Any doubting thomases ought to yank out their forms used to buy their home and note the FNMA code numbers at the bottom. Those mean lenders must use their forms and also obey FNMA rules.

If lenders did not follow FNMA rules, they had to try to market to Wall St.

So long as it was just Wall St buying subprimes, other than the Fed FHA loans this did not get out of hand.

Wall St demanded higher standards than did FNMA once they wanted to capture the market.

Country wide could not ruin the market but for FNMA.


Then under the National Homeownership Strategy, unscrupulous practices that could only be called, 'bad loans' were encouraged, in the name of getting 'everyone in the American Dream.' Obviously within years, this would become everyone's nightmare.

But remember that until FNMA changed the rules, those pracitices were held in check. If somebody wants to speak of the greed, it was those working in senior spots at FNMA as well as Freddie that got greedy. They raked in huge bonus for footing the bill for bad loans.

I recall the entire scope of home loans including back to when I could use only some of a womans income to help her husband qualify for a home loan.

When I started, you had to put up 20 percent down. I was in the business when the 5 percent and 10 percent loan came out. In those days, I sold a lot of property due to low down loans. Still even with those, the borrower had to have good credit and deal with both the lender underwriting but added was the private mortgage insurance with their rules and regulations.

For many years, i had to know the fees charged by the Private insurance company. When the crap started we did not know the cost of the insurance due to changes by the boys at the top of the chain at FNMA who decided that said fees could be put in with the regular interest rate so we no longer had to know the costs or tell anybody of them.

For instance.

At one time, I would have to learn that lender A at the wholesale level had an interest rate of .... say 7 percent. To that was added the PMI fees I spoke of.

When FNMA got into this, that stopped. Why mention this?

Trying to show that once FNMA got in hell bent to run the market, they did run it and they were the dog that wagged the tails. None of us could do loans unless they approved them.

One more thing. Those unscrupulous loan agents. Actually I saw some of them even in the early 1970s and some of them got prosecuted.

[Robert A Whit]

ROBERT. Who the hell are you talking to, or about?

I never worked full time in real estate. Unless you count the watery real estate of the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranian sea.
Last time I checked. I retired from 30 years in the uniform of the U.S. Navy. And never sold an inch of real estate...ever.

You were making snide remarks to me and I just replied in kind is all.

[red states rule]

Since I deal with this issue for 45 to 53 hours per week, it all started back in 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999 In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
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 and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

[Robert A Whit]

Bush figured it out and so did Democrats but as Kath says, the Dems blocked any reform.

Sadly once FNMA changed the rules to favor them, it got out of hand.

Many of you might want to know what subprimes were like prior to FNMA getting in deep.

First Wall St investors traded in those loans. And the interest rates were sky high. And of course if you had poor credit, you could get a loan but not for any low down payment.

I used to get FAX to me all day long rate sheets. Today I get mine off the internet.

On those rate sheets the wholesalers gave us matrix rates.

If you had a FICO of say 700 and needed to use one, say you were self employed for a year and had decent credit, the regular loan market would not give you a loan. Wall St decided you might deserve the loan but since you could not get that loan at a bank or the regular channels, you could get one for a higher interest rate and costs.

Wall St is not stupid. Those early subprimes had strings attached. And even though you could get that loan, you paid premium prices.

When FNMA got into it big time, that all changed. Suddenly any loan was good enough. Some we did not even have to know the guy worked. It was the era of anything goes loans.

Some of us at the retail level got blamed. But just as you can't dictate to your bank, we could not dictate to oru money source either. If they sent me the forms to approve flakey loans, woe on them. It was when FNMA got into this that the money in those loans got big time.

When I dealt a lot with Country Wide in the early 1970s, they were a premium company. FNMA in my view turned Mozillo into a crook.

Many of you discount entirely the greed at the top of FNMA and Freddie. Those bosses took like $50 million dollars and higher bonus checks for what they did.

When the boys at Wall St figured out that FNMA was selling them junk, they decided to hedge those loans and thus we get to AIG who insured them.

By the way, it was Democrats in charge at FNMA who got so greedy. You can see that Clinton put them in charge. I don't however claim he collected profits but perhaps he did. I wish I knew.

[aboutime]

You were making snide remarks to me and I just replied in kind is all.


There is a remedy for that kind of 'in-kind' excuse. See a psychiatrist soon. And take copies of your posts with you to prove it.

[red states rule]

The other dirty little secret is that after billions spent to "modify" mortgage loans, more than 50% of those loans that have been modified are back in default again. I have seen many loans with a 2% rate and the h/o is back in default if not foreclosure.

[aboutime]

The other dirty little secret is that after billions spent to "modify" mortgage loans, more than 50% of those loans that have been modified are back in default again. I have seen many loans with a 2% rate and the h/o is back in default if not foreclosure.


red states rule. Most all of us, in our travels anywhere across this nation. Have seen the signs of Mortgage defaults, Forclosures, and abandoned buildings from homes, to block long, roadside mini malls.

We also know. Fanny and Freddy, Dodd, Frank were the cause, and continue to be the cause.

The reason I see that the 2 percent homeloans are also back in default. Seems to coincide with the high Unemployment rates that Obama HAS THE AUDACITY to brag about....being lower.

The DIRTY LITTLE SECRET is no longer SECRET.

[red states rule]

red states rule. Most all of us, in our travels anywhere across this nation. Have seen the signs of Mortgage defaults, Forclosures, and abandoned buildings from homes, to block long, roadside mini malls.

We also know. Fanny and Freddy, Dodd, Frank were the cause, and continue to be the cause.

The reason I see that the 2 percent homeloans are also back in default. Seems to coincide with the high Unemployment rates that Obama HAS THE AUDACITY to brag about....being lower.

The DIRTY LITTLE SECRET is no longer SECRET.

not only that, but people also know they can drag the foreclosure process out by filing bankruptcy, and demanding "debt validation", and of course elected officials gumming up the works. I see loans more then THREE YEARS past due, and the foreclosure sale has not taken place.

[aboutime]

not only that, but people also know they can drag the foreclosure process out by filing bankruptcy, and demanding "debt validation", and of course elected officials gumming up the works. I see loans more then THREE YEARS past due, and the foreclosure sale has not taken place.


Wow! I honestly wasn't aware of how deeply the govt. was allowing this problem to expand, as you said.

I just thank God we haven't been dragged down to that level because of the economy. I mean ME, and my Wife, when I speak of WE.

With all of the medical problems we have faced over the years. Somehow, we managed to always keep our home. And yes. Sometimes we had to do without a lot of things we had been used to enjoying. But we only missed our mortgage payment...I think, three times since we moved here in 1988. The best part is. As you mentioned. Our interest rate is only 2%. And I remember our first home in Pennsylvania back in the 1970's, when our interest rate was.........13%.

Can't imagine how any Real Estate agent worth their weight in Honesty would ever bother trying to sell someone a home if THEY WERE UNEMPLOYED, or on WELFARE.
But now. We all know. That is exactly what happened.

[red states rule]

Wow! I honestly wasn't aware of how deeply the govt. was allowing this problem to expand, as you said.

I just thank God we haven't been dragged down to that level because of the economy. I mean ME, and my Wife, when I speak of WE.

With all of the medical problems we have faced over the years. Somehow, we managed to always keep our home. And yes. Sometimes we had to do without a lot of things we had been used to enjoying. But we only missed our mortgage payment...I think, three times since we moved here in 1988. The best part is. As you mentioned. Our interest rate is only 2%. And I remember our first home in Pennsylvania back in the 1970's, when our interest rate was.........13%.

Can't imagine how any Real Estate agent worth their weight in Honesty would ever bother trying to sell someone a home if THEY WERE UNEMPLOYED, or on WELFARE.
But now. We all know. That is exactly what happened. What happened was libs were out to make home ownership a RIGHT and not something you EARNED. They backed the loans so the writer of the loan would make the loan, then "sell" it to the Feds. Remember Barney Frank bellowing there was no problem since the Federal government was backing the loan?Libs are about to do to healthcare what they have done to the housing industry.

[aboutime]

What happened was libs were out to make home ownership a RIGHT and not something you EARNED. They backed the loans so the writer of the loan would make the loan, then "sell" it to the Feds. Remember Barney Frank bellowing there was no problem since the Federal government was backing the loan?Libs are about to do to healthcare what they have done to the housing industry.


Exactly right! And even up till today. The Libs, Dems, Obama-ites are still trying to claim that Bush did nothing.

Problem is. Obama, Libs, Dems, Progressives have been telling each other the same lies so long. Not even they are sure where the old lie stops, and the new lie begins.

[red states rule]

Exactly right! And even up till today. The Libs, Dems, Obama-ites are still trying to claim that Bush did nothing.

Problem is. Obama, Libs, Dems, Progressives have been telling each other the same lies so long. Not even they are sure where the old lie stops, and the new lie begins.

Being a liberal means NEVER admitting you are wrong, saying you are sorry, and always blaming others when you F**K up and your polices end up screwing over the people you claim to care about

[Robert A Whit]

Since I deal with this issue for 45 to 53 hours per week, it all started back in 1999 http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Precisely what happened. That article is from 1999 and by the time the market melted, many more blacks than 18 percent had got loans.

A report I read a couple years back gave a lot of emphasis on the blacks who had no intention of paying for the home. It bit FNMA in the butt. And sucked the equity from our homes. Sad isn't it?

But that article hits it directly center.

[red states rule]

here are Democrats blocking Pres Bush's and Republican attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie BEFORE the bottom fell out of the housing market
http://youtu.be/ebWJ892h5dA

[Robert A Whit]

There is a remedy for that kind of 'in-kind' excuse. See a psychiatrist soon. And take copies of your posts with you to prove it.

Something is really wrong in that head. How much longer do you intend to attack me?

I noticed you did not tell Red States that he was talking to the choir. Perhaps you forgot?

To put it plainly, what Red States said is dead on. However, I hope you noticed he, as I did pinned it onto FNMA.

[fj1200]

That is not true. I first learned finance in the ordinary business market. It was only when i got into the home business that I then had to learn how home loans actually work.

Since I am talking of the housing market crash that brought down the rest, I can speak of that cause.

FYI, I learned commercial finance in the late 1960s and housing finance from 1971 forward.

Good for you. Shall I impress you with my knowledge and experience in the bond market? It's great that you can speak of "that cause" but there are other causes that are repeatedly ignoring.


You may want to find out who made the rules we all had to follow.

I keep telling you all that FNMA made the rules.

Do you believe in this idea? He who has the gold makes the rules?

Are you really this daft? Please point out which one of us is disagreeing with you on that point? Some of us are trying to tell you that there may be larger issues than just F&F relaxing loan rules. You can feel free to disagree but to continually prattle on about your preeminent experience serves no purpose.

[fj1200]

The Housing Crisis: As explained with a Venn Diagram


FNMA

Securitizing mortgages
Carried out housing policy per Congressional direction
Resisted increased regulatory control
Subprime mortgage securitization




FASB

Mark-to-market rules
FAS 157 effective November '07, market peaked October '07
3/9/09 Market bottoms (http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI+Interactive#symbol=%5Edji;range=2 0070115,20090618;compare=;indicator=volume;chartty pe=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;sou rce=undefined;) as Bernanke is open to relaxing MTM
4/9/09 FAS 157 is eased where market is unsteady or inactive


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark-to-market_accounting#FAS_157


Federal Reserve

Controls monetary policy
Early '00s Fed Funds Rate is held below the Taylor rule (http://hjhuney.com/alt/taylor-rule-vs-federal-funds-rate)
Gold (http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au3650nyb.html) and commodity prices steadily increase for past 10 years
Signs are indicative of excess liquidity



Now imagine if you will the three circles above being combined into 1 Venn Diagram where the intersection is indicative of the Housing Crisis of late '08/early '09 and any 1 factor is not responsible for the meltdown but all factors are necessary to create the crisis.

[aboutime]

Something is really wrong in that head. How much longer do you intend to attack me?

I noticed you did not tell Red States that he was talking to the choir. Perhaps you forgot?

To put it plainly, what Red States said is dead on. However, I hope you noticed he, as I did pinned it onto FNMA.


Robert. I have no need to attack you in any way.

Your posts seem to be much more informative to other readers. So I have no need when I can just allow you to CARRY ON.

[Robert A Whit]

Good for you. Shall I impress you with my knowledge and experience in the bond market? It's great that you can speak of "that cause" but there are other causes that are repeatedly ignoring.



Are you really this daft? Please point out which one of us is disagreeing with you on that point? Some of us are trying to tell you that there may be larger issues than just F&F relaxing loan rules. You can feel free to disagree but to continually prattle on about your preeminent experience serves no purpose.

Funny that the Video did not do much more than blame FNMA. Why do you suppose that expert wall street economist did that?

While I understand a lot about the Bond Market and a fair amount about the stock market and commodities market, I have not bought or sold in any of those markets.

Why would I put the blame on any of them when I am just aquainted with them?

FNMA imposed new rules. I believe once they imposed new rules, it went downhill after. I believe that the CEOS of the two companies rushed to obtain super huge bonus and did not realize they were making things much worse.

I realize that I am dealing with the housing collapse part. Sure, once Housing took the dive, it dragged down other enterprises. It was dominos falling over in action.

I have also pointed out on other forums that I believe that the price of fuels had a huge impact.

Why say that?

A lot of people commute long distances to a job. Say they got into a home and put a small down payment with an adjustable loan. Many but not all subprimes were adjustable.

Buyers and even owners of homes on an overall basis, not to include those well versed in how it works, put themselves in harms way. Maybe some agent did not do due diligence and explain the loan to them well enough to make an informed decision, but I don't work that way.

I happen to have appraised homes and many lenders were my customers. I saw over a span of time that their borrowers were not likely to learn from the agents and for my money those agents really harmed them.

But overall I think buyers and even borrowers believed that things were going so well that they figured a refinance would solve it later. When the shit hit the fan, they had no door to pass through so they got the shaft.

Buyers need to be better informed and I thought the disclosures we then used, of only they would study them, would help the borrowers. Then when I got my new Obama forms on my system, I was in shock. Trying to inform them better will confuse them. And it forces lenders who work hard for the customer to lead them to do a lot more price shopping.

Back to oil.

Long distance commuters common in my area got the shaft when prices of fuel went sky high. They had to pick, fuel for my car to get to work or not pay something else. Then their adjustable loan kicked into high gear and payments on the home skyrocketed.

Can we see how this hurt them?

I think we can.

But to your topic of Bonds, the typical working homeowner does buy fuel and also is subject to terms of their loans making it impossible for them to keep paying for the home.

I don't think bonds were on those customers minds.

Do you?

[Robert A Whit]

Robert. I have no need to attack you in any way.

Your posts seem to be much more informative to other readers. So I have no need when I can just allow you to CARRY ON.

I have a swell idea.

Say something nice to me as I am about to do for you and let's have peace?

I did not take kindly to your smearing me and wanting me to go see a doctor to "treat my problem"

I do not consider you an expert in mental health and when you tell somebody they are nuts, don't hit send. Erase that post and start thinking.

I enjoy most of your posts. Only when you insult others do I flinch at times. But overall I like your posts. I also do not present myself as superior. I may know something others don't know but that is in no way a bad thing.

My doctor knows a lot more than I know about the human being and I would be pretty sour if I blamed him for being the expert.

When I speak to a topic, I damned well try to know quite a bit or I won't talk to a topic.

An example yesterday was when I openly admitted I don't know about Venn very much other than I had read up on it on Wikipedia. I don't believe reading Wikipedia made me any sort of expert. So I asked questions.

I then got smeared for asking questions and one person stated I was being condesending.

How can an ignorant person be taken as condesending?

I admitted I am ignorant about that topic. But on home loans, I am not ignorant.

One more example.

I suspect that in the Bond market and probably the stock market, Tail Fins can run circles around me. I do however understand those markets but since I have not at any time traded in them, I let the actual esperts handle that topic. There is no better way to get educated than to put your own cash into a market and both win and lose. Some of those traders seem to know just the best time to short stocks. I won't talk to that topic hardly at all since it is not my strong point. I think Tail Fins probably is strong in that arena.

[aboutime]

I have a swell idea.

Say something nice to me as I am about to do for you and let's have peace?

I did not take kindly to your smearing me and wanting me to go see a doctor to "treat my problem"

I do not consider you an expert in mental health and when you tell somebody they are nuts, don't hit send. Erase that post and start thinking.

I enjoy most of your posts. Only when you insult others do I flinch at times. But overall I like your posts. I also do not present myself as superior. I may know something others don't know but that is in no way a bad thing.

My doctor knows a lot more than I know about the human being and I would be pretty sour if I blamed him for being the expert.

When I speak to a topic, I damned well try to know quite a bit or I won't talk to a topic.

An example yesterday was when I openly admitted I don't know about Venn very much other than I had read up on it on Wikipedia. I don't believe reading Wikipedia made me any sort of expert. So I asked questions.

I then got smeared for asking questions and one person stated I was being condesending.

How can an ignorant person be taken as condesending?

I admitted I am ignorant about that topic. But on home loans, I am not ignorant.

One more example.

I suspect that in the Bond market and probably the stock market, Tail Fins can run circles around me. I do however understand those markets but since I have not at any time traded in them, I let the actual esperts handle that topic. There is no better way to get educated than to put your own cash into a market and both win and lose. Some of those traders seem to know just the best time to short stocks. I won't talk to that topic hardly at all since it is not my strong point. I think Tail Fins probably is strong in that arena.


Perhaps I should remind you about SCOLDING me yesterday for having 40 years of Real Estate experience?

Not me. Never had such a profession.

So. If you are serious about having some Peace here.

How bout trying to understand WHO you are talking to, before you make accusations.

You continued talking to me, and others. Even after we told you we had NO IDEA why you were trying to Impress us with information NONE OF US NEEDED, or WANTED.

[Robert A Whit]

How bout trying to understand WHO you are talking to, before you make accusations.

You continued talking to me, and others. Even after we told you we had NO IDEA why you were trying to Impress us with information NONE OF US NEEDED, or WANTED.

Look About time

I did not ever scold you. You jumped my bones so I sarcastically wanted to know your motive so I spoke of how much time you spent in my business.

Let me clear up your wrong headed thinking.
1. I was talking to those who had an interest. I realize others read and moved on leaving no remarks. They proved they don't want more talking.
2. You are not in charge of deciding if others are not interested. They are in charge.
To date, you are the sole person I believe that stated you did not want to discuss it.

But you kept on.

Since you claim you don't want or need to know, skip those posts.

Problem solved. And your personal psychiatrist would tell you the same thing.

I have no mental health problems and If I did, I am smart enough to go get help.

I have other doctors. I am not ashamed to seek help and I god damned well don't need your advise on seeing doctors.

When you declare on a forum others ought to head out for a mental evaluation, you definitely are insulting them. You can try to soft peddle it but nobody needs to be talked to like that.

[fj1200]

Funny that the Video did not do much more than blame FNMA. Why do you suppose that expert wall street economist did that?

While I understand a lot about the Bond Market and a fair amount about the stock market and commodities market, I have not bought or sold in any of those markets.

Why would I put the blame on any of them when I am just aquainted with them?

FNMA imposed new rules. I believe once they imposed new rules, it went downhill after. I believe that the CEOS of the two companies rushed to obtain super huge bonus and did not realize they were making things much worse.

I realize that I am dealing with the housing collapse part. Sure, once Housing took the dive, it dragged down other enterprises. It was dominos falling over in action.

I have also pointed out on other forums that I believe that the price of fuels had a huge impact.

Why say that?

A lot of people commute long distances to a job. Say they got into a home and put a small down payment with an adjustable loan. Many but not all subprimes were adjustable.

Buyers and even owners of homes on an overall basis, not to include those well versed in how it works, put themselves in harms way. Maybe some agent did not do due diligence and explain the loan to them well enough to make an informed decision, but I don't work that way.

I happen to have appraised homes and many lenders were my customers. I saw over a span of time that their borrowers were not likely to learn from the agents and for my money those agents really harmed them.

But overall I think buyers and even borrowers believed that things were going so well that they figured a refinance would solve it later. When the shit hit the fan, they had no door to pass through so they got the shaft.

Buyers need to be better informed and I thought the disclosures we then used, of only they would study them, would help the borrowers. Then when I got my new Obama forms on my system, I was in shock. Trying to inform them better will confuse them. And it forces lenders who work hard for the customer to lead them to do a lot more price shopping.

Back to oil.

Long distance commuters common in my area got the shaft when prices of fuel went sky high. They had to pick, fuel for my car to get to work or not pay something else. Then their adjustable loan kicked into high gear and payments on the home skyrocketed.

Can we see how this hurt them?

I think we can.

But to your topic of Bonds, the typical working homeowner does buy fuel and also is subject to terms of their loans making it impossible for them to keep paying for the home.

I don't think bonds were on those customers minds.

Do you?

You're kidding right? Your post is a jumble of unrelated thoughts. But the sentence I bolded is exactly the problem. You don't know what you don't know but you refuse to assign any blame to anything else because you don't know it. You are stretching to assign the problem to what you think you know. If you're only "acquainted" with the bond markets then you have no idea that what you think you know is even relevant. Once those mortgages are packaged and resold and become the basis for banking reserves they become part of a realm which you don't know and hence are no longer to blame because you're not "acquainted."

And while that "wall street economist" blamed FNMA it's possible that he has no idea about anything else and just happened to have been put into an arena where his thoughts could be picked up by you and seen as the answer to the housing crisis. And because he happens to be an expert in an area that you have some knowledge in you automatically grant him expert status. Your mind is automatically closed to any alternative theories based on what you have stated here. You could find 50 different theories as to the causes of the housing crisis with 50 different credible sources but they automatically lose in your mind.

[aboutime]

Look About time

I did not ever scold you. You jumped my bones so I sarcastically wanted to know your motive so I spoke of how much time you spent in my business.

Let me clear up your wrong headed thinking.
1. I was talking to those who had an interest. I realize others read and moved on leaving no remarks. They proved they don't want more talking.
2. You are not in charge of deciding if others are not interested. They are in charge.
To date, you are the sole person I believe that stated you did not want to discuss it.

But you kept on.

Since you claim you don't want or need to know, skip those posts.

Problem solved. And your personal psychiatrist would tell you the same thing.

I have no mental health problems and If I did, I am smart enough to go get help.

I have other doctors. I am not ashamed to seek help and I god damned well don't need your advise on seeing doctors.

When you declare on a forum others ought to head out for a mental evaluation, you definitely are insulting them. You can try to soft peddle it but nobody needs to be talked to like that.



4054

[Robert A Whit]

You're kidding right? Your post is a jumble of unrelated thoughts. But the sentence I bolded is exactly the problem. You don't know what you don't know but you refuse to assign any blame to anything else because you don't know it. You are stretching to assign the problem to what you think you know. If you're only "acquainted" with the bond markets then you have no idea that what you think you know is even relevant. Once those mortgages are packaged and resold and become the basis for banking reserves they become part of a realm which you don't know and hence are no longer to blame because you're not "acquainted."

And while that "wall street economist" blamed FNMA it's possible that he has no idea about anything else and just happened to have been put into an arena where his thoughts could be picked up by you and seen as the answer to the housing crisis. And because he happens to be an expert in an area that you have some knowledge in you automatically grant him expert status. Your mind is automatically closed to any alternative theories based on what you have stated here. You could find 50 different theories as to the causes of the housing crisis with 50 different credible sources but they automatically lose in your mind.

Your problem with your disjointed post is you complain about me, but you offer nothing valid to support your point.

I admitted that while I do understand the bond market, I have not traded in them. Despite that opening, you chose to keep discussing me rather than making your case.

I can't do a thing with your post until you offer something tangible.

Apparently my remarks whoosed over your head. I don't believe for a moment you understand the housing market. Bonds, probably. Housing, nah.

[fj1200]

Your problem with your disjointed post is you complain about me, but you offer nothing valid to support your point.

I admitted that while I do understand the bond market, I have not traded in them. Despite that opening, you chose to keep discussing me rather than making your case.

I can't do a thing with your post until you offer something tangible.

Apparently my remarks whoosed over your head. I don't believe for a moment you understand the housing market. Bonds, probably. Housing, nah.

:facepalm99: I have validated my point multiple times in multiple threads while all you do is proclaim your apparent experience and one guy that made the internet. Any idiot "understands" the housing market as is evidenced by the multiple "professionals" that one comes across and honestly, the point that you keep making is not rocket science.

BTW, you might want to check out post #29 in this very thread for valid point making and stuff... complete with links. ;)

[aboutime]

:facepalm99: I have validated my point multiple times in multiple threads while all you do is proclaim your apparent experience and one guy that made the internet. Any idiot "understands" the housing market as is evidenced by the multiple "professionals" that one comes across and honestly, the point that you keep making is not rocket science.

BTW, you might want to check out post #29 in this very thread for valid point making and stuff... complete with links. ;)


fj. Though you and I disagree, more often than agree on most everything. I guess you can see what I have been up against most of today with Robert.
Seems like anyone who dares to disagree, or even AGREE with him in any way is a threat to him. For reasons, only Robert knows.

Welcome to the club.

[Robert A Whit]

:facepalm99: I have validated my point multiple times in multiple threads while all you do is proclaim your apparent experience and one guy that made the internet. Any idiot "understands" the housing market as is evidenced by the multiple "professionals" that one comes across and honestly, the point that you keep making is not rocket science.BTW, you might want to check out post #29 in this very thread for valid point making and stuff... complete with links. ;)I see some validation for my posts. Though you seem unhappy with my proofs, and want me to rely on only yours (could be wrong on that) I shall return to post 29 to see if yoiu accurately described what happend and how.I shall return. Meantime, put that gun away. I had to get rid of Abouttime and don't want to do it to others.

[Robert A Whit]

The Housing Crisis: As explained with a Venn Diagram




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark-to-market_accounting#FAS_157



Now imagine if you will the three circles above being combined into 1 Venn Diagram where the intersection is indicative of the Housing Crisis of late '08/early '09 and any 1 factor is not responsible for the meltdown but all factors are necessary to create the crisis.

Sorry for not bringing all 3 circles with this but I don't know how.

In your first circle, you forgot to state that the loans were created the way they were due to FNMA making the rules. The only way so many bad loans could happen is that the FNMA rules made it possible and they encouraged those loans. As to your other reasons, had FNMA kept the touigher rules, the rest would not matter. IMO and I have posted video explaining it.

I would add that the top leaders at FNMA apparently were pretty greedy and worked hard to get as many bad loans produced as possible. I tend to doubt any of you saw the rate sheets of that era as I have. One more thing and I move on. When you had such a vigorous market with so many people trying to own property to the point prices went up fast, that has to be a factor also. But easier money with sloppy contracts all under the direction of FNMA is the prime cause.

Also, it was FJ that did this work rather than Tail fins. I thank Tail Fins for telling me about this post since I had never seen it. Many thanks. Reference to post 29.

[Kathianne]

I see some validation for my posts. Though you seem unhappy with my proofs, and want me to rely on only yours (could be wrong on that) I shall return to post 29 to see if yoiu accurately described what happend and how.I shall return. Meantime, put that gun away. I had to get rid of Abouttime and don't want to do it to others.

You are 'getting rid of folks? Or claiming that authority? Hello?

I really took the Venn thing as condescending, then it seemed you were sincere, and replied as I would to anyone who really wanted to know more about something I knew a bit about.

Robert, you really do push people's buttons, intentionally or not.

[Robert A Whit]

You are 'getting rid of folks? Or claiming that authority? Hello?

I really took the Venn thing as condescending, then it seemed you were sincere, and replied as I would to anyone who really wanted to know more about something I knew a bit about.

Robert, you really do push people's buttons, intentionally or not.

When posters treat me decently and properly, I don't push buttons. And I have not thus far tried to push any buttons. As to About time, he is on ignore. I am sick of his treatment. I may check to see if he can deal with posters properly.

[Kathianne]

When posters treat me decently and properly, I don't push buttons. And I have not thus far tried to push any buttons. As to About time, he is on ignore. I am sick of his treatment. I may check to see if he can deal with posters properly.

So Jim has made you the new filter? I don't think there was an old one, but you seem to have created a position.

[Robert A Whit]

So Jim has made you the new filter? I don't think there was an old one, but you seem to have created a position.

Jim has an ignore function so I used it. He does not give one damn as he told me.

What would you do about his insults? I don't need that crap. I don't insult posters.

[aboutime]

Hey everybody. Just poppin' in here to let all of you know. ROBERT got rid of me.

Thanks Robert.

Now explain HOW, and WHY you are reading this.

[fj1200]

I see some validation for my posts. Though you seem unhappy with my proofs, and want me to rely on only yours (could be wrong on that) I shall return to post 29 to see if yoiu accurately described what happend and how.I shall return. Meantime, put that gun away. I had to get rid of Abouttime and don't want to do it to others.

If you had paid a bit closer attention you would have noticed that I never really had a problem with your posts and your expert and his analysis. I was trying to make clear that I don't find fault to reside 100% in that particular circle... hence my attempting a Venn Diagram; see below. ;)


Sorry for not bringing all 3 circles with this but I don't know how.

In your first circle, you forgot to state that the loans were created the way they were due to FNMA making the rules. The only way so many bad loans could happen is that the FNMA rules made it possible and they encouraged those loans. As to your other reasons, had FNMA kept the touigher rules, the rest would not matter. IMO and I have posted video explaining it.

I didn't attempt to state every possible thing that FNMA did, each circle would have been more than 4 points if so, I only attempted a framework to analyze all other factors involved. That you think the rest "would not matter" is whistling past the graveyard; if other factors were not so severe as to cause a meltdown then the mess that FNMA made would have been easier to control and there would have been less call for the government to do "something."


I would add that the top leaders at FNMA apparently were pretty greedy and worked hard to get as many bad loans produced as possible. I tend to doubt any of you saw the rate sheets of that era as I have. One more thing and I move on. When you had such a vigorous market with so many people trying to own property to the point prices went up fast, that has to be a factor also. But easier money with sloppy contracts all under the direction of FNMA is the prime cause.

Also, it was FJ that did this work rather than Tail fins. I thank Tail Fins for telling me about this post since I had never seen it. Many thanks. Reference to post 29.

So you acknowledge other causes while completely ignoring the other evidence I presented. Progress I guess.

[red states rule]

Worked a case yesterday where the h/o was 54 months behind (yes 54 months) The borrower broke 9 repayment plans. was reviewed for 13 workout plans, and filed 4 separate bankruptcy cases. The f/c sale finally happened and they were "demanding" we rescind the sale and grant them a loan mod despite the fact it is clear they do not have enough income to support a reduced payment.

Yet the banks and the mortgage industry is the bad guy in all this according to the liberal media and the compassionate left