> > > Why am I suddenly getting a lecture on population?
> > You're not smart enough to give up on partisan > > politics-as-usual by yourself. You need some help.
> You can't even follow a conversation. How is a fool > like yourself going to help me?
You see what problems we're having getting resources for 6.5 billion people, and the projection is we're headed for 9 or 10 billion, and you're talking about Bally's shareholders! Where's your head at?!? . . --
> > > > Why am I suddenly getting a lecture on population?
> > > You're not smart enough to give up on partisan > > > politics-as-usual by yourself. You need some help.
> > You can't even follow a conversation. How is a fool > > like yourself going to help me?
> You see what problems we're having getting resources > for 6.5 billion people, and the projection is we're headed > for 9 or 10 billion, and you're talking about Bally's > shareholders! Where's your head at?!?
I want to talk about Bally's shareholders. If you don't like it, start another thread. Lisa
>>" Brokers, bankers play subprime blame game >>The head of the mortgage banking industry's trade group claimed >>mortgage brokers and lenders focused only on short-term profits >>benefited from the housing boom, but didn't do enough to examine >>whether borrowers could repay. >>Harry Dinham, president of the National Association of Mortgage >>Brokers, replied by saying that, because most residential mortgage >> >>loans are quickly resold to investors, most lenders are actually "just >>
brokering the transaction but afraid or ashamed to admit it."
Which, in other words, means that borrowers took advantange of the situation also.
Logically, I want to borrow 100k. Hmm. Someone is willing to loan me 100k for 3% interest.
Questions I would ask myself:
1). Would I settle for 3% interest on my investments? 2). If not, why not? 3). Why can I get a 3% ARM yet a 30 year fixed is 6.0 %?
> On Jun 14, 5:22 pm, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
> > Vide...@tcq.net wrote: > > >On Jun 14, 2:21 pm, Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>under the conservatives tax's have been slashed only for the rich, > > >> >> walla, speculation is now running wild creating massive bubbles and > > >> >>ld complicated schemes to get even richer. > > >> >>History tells us that this will not end well.
> > >> How so? Isn't it those so called rich people that funded the loans to > > >> begin with? > > >yes it was. then they resold them beal. to institutions, or countries > > >that think they are being treated fairly, or are run by someone from > > >beals world.
> > You must have been around too many extremely stupid people. The > > financial types I know would all assess the risk, based on the party > > they were dealing with and the securities they are buying. If there > > are any as stupid as you imagine, they are not gong to be in the world > > of finance very long.
> there are a lot of them. they have purchased perhaps billions, but i > have read perhaps a trillion or more dollars worth.
> Financial Darwinism will almost certainly have
> > weeded them out before they get enough money to invest heavily in such > > mortgages.
> not so. this is just the beginning. you will see later many so-called > solid institutions with many many bad loans on there hands. later on > you and i will be discussing this as they implode. you might be > shocked, i will not be.
> I guess it's just my "rugged individualism" showing
> > through,
> self inflicted gullibility, how does that one sound.
> but those who lost or will lose money on those mortgages
> > don't get much sympathy from me--they took a risk in anticipation of > > high potential return, and this time it didn't pay off. That's life.
> if they were sold these packages with all knowledge of what they were > buying then who cares, let them eat crow. > but since when would crooks who steal from the poor enter into any > financial transaction with transparency?
> > Now, if the mortgagor was induced to enter into the contract through > > fraud or deceptive marketing practices, that's a whole 'nother kettle > > of fish.
> i just posted a article on just that subject. it was not aimed at you > because you do have some feelings on right and wrong.
> If that can happen, maybe the truth in lending laws need to
> > be strengthened. > > --
> they are trying.
> > Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
> this is out a article i just posted, > "Often these loans are > securitized and sold to investors such as insurance companies and > pension funds."
> and here is another one, > " Brokers, bankers play subprime blame game > The head of the mortgage banking industry's trade group claimed > mortgage brokers and lenders focused only on short-term profits > benefited from the housing boom, but didn't do enough to examine > whether borrowers could repay.
> Harry Dinham, president of the National Association of Mortgage > Brokers, replied by saying that, because most residential mortgage > loans are quickly resold to investors, most lenders are actually "just > brokering the transaction but afraid or ashamed to admit it."
> and of course these loans that involve outright fraud, > falsifications, and even forgery are repackaged and sold to > investors. > so if investors are so smart, how come they have bought perhaps > billions or trillions of dollars worth of these loans?- Hide quoted text -
How many of these so called sub-prime borrowers would be willing to take a 6.5 % 30 year fixed today? The answer to that question is key to who is responsible for the mortgage mess.
> On Jun 18, 9:42 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 8:14 pm, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 17, 9:07 am, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 16, 4:58 am, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 14, 10:53 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 14, 9:25 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> > > > > > > so if investors are so smart, how come they have bought perhaps > > > > > > > billions or trillions of dollars worth of these loans?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > Here's one group of investors who don't feel so smart these days. And > > > > > > Bush apparently has limited sympathy for them:
> > > > > What exactly is the people's case against Enron's investors?
> > > > There isn't one. LOL! You can't read.
> > > Yes I can. What do you think an investment banker is?
> > > > The shareholders are suing
> > > ...anyone they can get money out of? I put a question mark there > > > because I don't, which is why I ask you: what is their case?
> > > > the > > > > investment banks, perhaps because they passed on fraudulent > > > > information regarding the financial health of Enron.
> > > I am just curious why you apparently assume they have a case. You > > > don't even seem to know what they allegedly did wrong.
> > According to Enron's shareholders, the banks ran a ponzi scheme that > > enriched their top execs at the expense of the gullible investors.
> > There's lots of info on this. Look it up.
> > Lisa
> he knows lisa. it is just that he thinks enron behavior is legit.- Hide quoted text -
Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote: >How many of these so called sub-prime borrowers would be willing to >take a 6.5 % 30 year fixed today? The answer to that question is key >to who is responsible for the mortgage mess.
There is truth in what you say, but it over-simplifies. While the greed of the borrowers is a contributing factor, so is the promotion of such loans, where the mortgage brokers may use sales techniques that are shady, if not illegal. -- Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
On Jun 19, 4:45 pm, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
> Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >How many of these so called sub-prime borrowers would be willing to > >take a 6.5 % 30 year fixed today? The answer to that question is key > >to who is responsible for the mortgage mess.
> There is truth in what you say, but it over-simplifies. While the > greed of the borrowers is a contributing factor, so is the promotion > of such loans, where the mortgage brokers may use sales techniques > that are shady, if not illegal. > -- > Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
correct, and how many times must we point this out?
> On Jun 17, 8:14 pm, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 9:07 am, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 16, 4:58 am, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 14, 10:53 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 14, 9:25 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> > > > > > so if investors are so smart, how come they have bought perhaps > > > > > > billions or trillions of dollars worth of these loans?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > Here's one group of investors who don't feel so smart these days. And > > > > > Bush apparently has limited sympathy for them:
> > > > What exactly is the people's case against Enron's investors?
> > > There isn't one. LOL! You can't read.
> > Yes I can. What do you think an investment banker is?
> > > The shareholders are suing
> > ...anyone they can get money out of? I put a question mark there > > because I don't, which is why I ask you: what is their case?
> > > the > > > investment banks, perhaps because they passed on fraudulent > > > information regarding the financial health of Enron.
> > I am just curious why you apparently assume they have a case. You > > don't even seem to know what they allegedly did wrong.
> According to Enron's shareholders, the banks ran a ponzi scheme that > enriched their top execs at the expense of the gullible investors.
You could essentially argue that of anyone who purchased and then sold a stock that later dropped in value. However, in order to have a case, you need to show a little more than the fact that a company went bankrupt. Here's the thing Lisa, I am aware that Enron executives lied about their finances. I am aware that some of them unloaded stocks while claiming the company was financially secure. This, in my opinion, is no different than stealing. I am also aware that Anderson was probably complicit in the lying. At the very least, it displayed egregious incompetence in providing unqualified approval of Enron's financial filings.
But I am also aware that people like to sue anyone they can conceivably get money out of. I am also aware that certain people on Usenet will automatically assume that the investment bankers did something wrong simply because it supports their political ideology if they did. And I am perfectly aware that some people will assume, knowing absolutely nothing about the case, that the Justice Department dropped support for it because they have a serious case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
> Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >How many of these so called sub-prime borrowers would be willing to > >take a 6.5 % 30 year fixed today? The answer to that question is key > >to who is responsible for the mortgage mess.
> There is truth in what you say, but it over-simplifies. While the > greed of the borrowers is a contributing factor, so is the promotion > of such loans, where the mortgage brokers may use sales techniques > that are shady, if not illegal. > -- > Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
> The buyer has some responsibility. If I listened to all of the SPAM I > receive, I could cut my mortgage in half, and double everything else.
> So, how do we fix it?
> My mortgage is 6.00%. It has been fixed for 7 years. So why would I > help someone with a 3% ARM?
> On Jun 19, 5:45 pm, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
> > Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >How many of these so called sub-prime borrowers would be willing to > > >take a 6.5 % 30 year fixed today? The answer to that question is key > > >to who is responsible for the mortgage mess.
> > There is truth in what you say, but it over-simplifies. While the > > greed of the borrowers is a contributing factor, so is the promotion > > of such loans, where the mortgage brokers may use sales techniques > > that are shady, if not illegal. > > -- > > Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
and how many times must we point out that there is fraud involved in a lot of these loans. the buyer who was stupid, was stupid, so were the bankers. but it looks like fraud is becoming a larger issue than was thought. so if you do not want the economy to fall on your head, you better worry that someone figures a way to help people get out of this mess.
> On Jun 18, 8:42 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 8:14 pm, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 17, 9:07 am, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 16, 4:58 am, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 14, 10:53 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 14, 9:25 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> > > > > > > so if investors are so smart, how come they have bought perhaps > > > > > > > billions or trillions of dollars worth of these loans?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > Here's one group of investors who don't feel so smart these days. And > > > > > > Bush apparently has limited sympathy for them:
> > > > > What exactly is the people's case against Enron's investors?
> > > > There isn't one. LOL! You can't read.
> > > Yes I can. What do you think an investment banker is?
> > > > The shareholders are suing
> > > ...anyone they can get money out of? I put a question mark there > > > because I don't, which is why I ask you: what is their case?
> > > > the > > > > investment banks, perhaps because they passed on fraudulent > > > > information regarding the financial health of Enron.
> > > I am just curious why you apparently assume they have a case. You > > > don't even seem to know what they allegedly did wrong.
> > According to Enron's shareholders, the banks ran a ponzi scheme that > > enriched their top execs at the expense of the gullible investors.
> You could essentially argue that of anyone who purchased and then sold > a stock that later dropped in value. However, in order to have a > case, you need to show a little more than the fact that a company went > bankrupt. Here's the thing Lisa, I am aware that Enron executives > lied about their finances. I am aware that some of them unloaded > stocks while claiming the company was financially secure. This, in my > opinion, is no different than stealing. I am also aware that Anderson > was probably complicit in the lying. At the very least, it displayed > egregious incompetence in providing unqualified approval of Enron's > financial filings.
> But I am also aware that people like to sue anyone they can > conceivably get money out of. I am also aware that certain people on > Usenet will automatically assume that the investment bankers did > something wrong simply because it supports their political ideology if > they did.
Given the steady drumbeat of corporate scandal these past twenty or so years, it's not surprising that they would.
> And I am perfectly aware that some people will assume, > knowing absolutely nothing about the case, that the Justice Department > dropped support for it because they have a serious case of Bush > Derangement Syndrome.
The Justice Department does seem to be rather dysfunctional these days, but I haven't kept track of the news about it, so I won't say more.
> > There's lots of info on this. Look it up.
> It's not my claim of wrongdoing to prove.-
Let's give it a bit more time. Then I'll post some more articles.
On Jun 19, 6:03 pm, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 8:42 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote: [snip] > > According to Enron's shareholders, the banks ran a ponzi scheme that > > enriched their top execs at the expense of the gullible investors.
> You could essentially argue that of anyone who purchased and then sold > a stock that later dropped in value. However, in order to have a > case, you need to show a little more than the fact that a company went > bankrupt.
Well, the case here though is that there was a frequently used process of hiding losses, and in fact converting them to profits, which required the assistance of the investment banks. That is the charge and what is being litigated. Whether you want to do so here is another story.
> Here's the thing Lisa, I am aware that Enron executives > lied about their finances. I am aware that some of them unloaded > stocks while claiming the company was financially secure. This, in my > opinion, is no different than stealing. I am also aware that Anderson > was probably complicit in the lying. At the very least, it displayed > egregious incompetence in providing unqualified approval of Enron's > financial filings.
> But I am also aware that people like to sue anyone they can > conceivably get money out of. I am also aware that certain people on > Usenet will automatically assume that the investment bankers did > something wrong simply because it supports their political ideology if > they did. And I am perfectly aware that some people will assume, > knowing absolutely nothing about the case, that the Justice Department > dropped support for it because they have a serious case of Bush > Derangement Syndrome.
Well, you are painting a group of people in a specific case based upon a very broad brush. What was done isn't really in dispute. Who knew/understood what was being done is another thing.
The basic shell game was that unprofitable assets of the company were "sold" to other companies that were formed for the specific purpose of unloading unprofitable ventures. They were "sold" by accepting stock in these new companies, often based upon IPO kinds of prices. These companies had officers which were also executives of Enron. So Enron now has stock in a company which took over unprofitable ventures. Their overall books look good because they unloaded an unprofitable venture for a "profit" because the value of the stock they bought was higher than the value of the asset sold. They actually could show and record a profit. Now, Enron would "sell" the stock in the new company, occasionally for a profit, to the officers of the new company. What did those guys pay with? Enron stock. Where'd they get it? Bonuses paid in stock options for having scored profits by selling off that unprofitable venture to another company for a profit.
Could this go on forever? No, and it didn't and it started to collapse and folks knew it but they also knew their only way out personally was to sell all assets that were exposed before anyone found out.
Now who knew? The assertion is that the investment banks helping to set up these other companies must have had some knowledge and that is what the investors are trying to take to court and what the Bush administration is not yet deciding to help them pursue.
> On Jun 19, 6:03 pm, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 8:42 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote: > [snip] > > > According to Enron's shareholders, the banks ran a ponzi scheme that > > > enriched their top execs at the expense of the gullible investors.
> > You could essentially argue that of anyone who purchased and then sold > > a stock that later dropped in value. However, in order to have a > > case, you need to show a little more than the fact that a company went > > bankrupt.
> Well, the case here though is that there was a frequently used > process > of hiding losses, and in fact converting them to profits, which > required > the assistance of the investment banks. That is the charge and what > is being litigated. Whether you want to do so here is another story.
> > Here's the thing Lisa, I am aware that Enron executives > > lied about their finances. I am aware that some of them unloaded > > stocks while claiming the company was financially secure. This, in my > > opinion, is no different than stealing. I am also aware that Anderson > > was probably complicit in the lying. At the very least, it displayed > > egregious incompetence in providing unqualified approval of Enron's > > financial filings.
> > But I am also aware that people like to sue anyone they can > > conceivably get money out of. I am also aware that certain people on > > Usenet will automatically assume that the investment bankers did > > something wrong simply because it supports their political ideology if > > they did. And I am perfectly aware that some people will assume, > > knowing absolutely nothing about the case, that the Justice Department > > dropped support for it because they have a serious case of Bush > > Derangement Syndrome.
> Well, you are painting a group of people in a specific case based > upon a very broad brush. What was done isn't really in dispute. > Who knew/understood what was being done is another thing.
> The basic shell game was that unprofitable assets of the company > were "sold" to other companies that were formed for the specific > purpose of unloading unprofitable ventures. They were "sold" > by accepting stock in these new companies, often based upon > IPO kinds of prices. These companies had officers which were > also executives of Enron. So Enron now has stock in a > company which took over unprofitable ventures. Their overall > books look good because they unloaded an unprofitable venture > for a "profit" because the value of the stock they bought was > higher than the value of the asset sold. They actually could > show and record a profit. Now, Enron would "sell" the stock > in the new company, occasionally for a profit, to the officers > of the new company. What did those guys pay with? > Enron stock. Where'd they get it? Bonuses paid in stock > options for having scored profits by selling off that unprofitable > venture to another company for a profit.
> Could this go on forever? No, and it didn't and it started > to collapse and folks knew it but they also knew their only > way out personally was to sell all assets that were exposed > before anyone found out.
> Now who knew? The assertion is that the investment > banks helping to set up these other companies must have > had some knowledge and that is what the investors are > trying to take to court and what the Bush administration is > not yet deciding to help them pursue.
a typical free market ponzi scheme based on turning stock and debt into collateral and money. typical pre 1933 free market conservative behavior.
Ok sure, I can see that. However, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Try telling that to the Highway Patrol when then pull you over for doing 60 in a 45.
Yes, some buyers were stupid and they always will be Any solution needs to address the difference.
How many of these loans involved fraud?
Someone who took a gamble and now finds themselves in a bad way, does not necessarily involve fraud by the seller or lender. It may, however, involve fraud by the buyer.
The number of actual cases of fraud will not be nearly enough to destroy the economy as you stated.
A mortgage applicant that enters a mortgage contract knowing full well that they don't have the assets to qualify for said mortgage are guilty of complicity as well. There is no excuse for not knowing the difference.
Of course, you will say that they never would have entered into the mortgage contract if there wasn't fraud involved. This is (IMO) a bad assumption.
I agree, let's fix it. The question is how and what's fair.
> On Jun 19, 5:07 pm, Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The buyer has some responsibility. If I listened to all of the SPAM I > > receive, I could cut my mortgage in half, and double everything else.
> > So, how do we fix it?
> > My mortgage is 6.00%. It has been fixed for 7 years. So why would I > > help someone with a 3% ARM?
> > On Jun 19, 5:45 pm, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
> > > Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >How many of these so called sub-prime borrowers would be willing to > > > >take a 6.5 % 30 year fixed today? The answer to that question is key > > > >to who is responsible for the mortgage mess.
> > > There is truth in what you say, but it over-simplifies. While the > > > greed of the borrowers is a contributing factor, so is the promotion > > > of such loans, where the mortgage brokers may use sales techniques > > > that are shady, if not illegal. > > > -- > > > Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
> and how many times must we point out that there is fraud involved in > a lot of these loans. the buyer who was stupid, was stupid, so were > the bankers. but it looks like fraud is becoming a larger issue than > was thought. > so if you do not want the economy to fall on your head, you better > worry that someone figures a way to help people get out of this mess.- Hide quoted text -
> On Jun 20, 10:34 am, me <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 6:03 pm, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 18, 8:42 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > According to Enron's shareholders, the banks ran a ponzi scheme that > > > > enriched their top execs at the expense of the gullible investors.
> > > You could essentially argue that of anyone who purchased and then sold > > > a stock that later dropped in value. However, in order to have a > > > case, you need to show a little more than the fact that a company went > > > bankrupt.
> > Well, the case here though is that there was a frequently used > > process > > of hiding losses, and in fact converting them to profits, which > > required > > the assistance of the investment banks. That is the charge and what > > is being litigated. Whether you want to do so here is another story.
> > > Here's the thing Lisa, I am aware that Enron executives > > > lied about their finances. I am aware that some of them unloaded > > > stocks while claiming the company was financially secure. This, in my > > > opinion, is no different than stealing. I am also aware that Anderson > > > was probably complicit in the lying. At the very least, it displayed > > > egregious incompetence in providing unqualified approval of Enron's > > > financial filings.
> > > But I am also aware that people like to sue anyone they can > > > conceivably get money out of. I am also aware that certain people on > > > Usenet will automatically assume that the investment bankers did > > > something wrong simply because it supports their political ideology if > > > they did. And I am perfectly aware that some people will assume, > > > knowing absolutely nothing about the case, that the Justice Department > > > dropped support for it because they have a serious case of Bush > > > Derangement Syndrome.
> > Well, you are painting a group of people in a specific case based > > upon a very broad brush. What was done isn't really in dispute. > > Who knew/understood what was being done is another thing.
> > The basic shell game was that unprofitable assets of the company > > were "sold" to other companies that were formed for the specific > > purpose of unloading unprofitable ventures. They were "sold" > > by accepting stock in these new companies, often based upon > > IPO kinds of prices. These companies had officers which were > > also executives of Enron. So Enron now has stock in a > > company which took over unprofitable ventures. Their overall > > books look good because they unloaded an unprofitable venture > > for a "profit" because the value of the stock they bought was > > higher than the value of the asset sold. They actually could > > show and record a profit. Now, Enron would "sell" the stock > > in the new company, occasionally for a profit, to the officers > > of the new company. What did those guys pay with? > > Enron stock. Where'd they get it? Bonuses paid in stock > > options for having scored profits by selling off that unprofitable > > venture to another company for a profit.
> > Could this go on forever? No, and it didn't and it started > > to collapse and folks knew it but they also knew their only > > way out personally was to sell all assets that were exposed > > before anyone found out.
> > Now who knew? The assertion is that the investment > > banks helping to set up these other companies must have > > had some knowledge and that is what the investors are > > trying to take to court and what the Bush administration is > > not yet deciding to help them pursue.
> a typical free market ponzi scheme based on turning stock and debt > into collateral and money. typical pre 1933 free market conservative > behavior.- Hide quoted text -
> Ok sure, I can see that. However, ignorance of the law is no excuse. > Try telling that to the Highway Patrol when then pull you over for > doing 60 in a 45.
> Yes, some buyers were stupid and they always will be Any solution > needs to address the difference.
> How many of these loans involved fraud?
> Someone who took a gamble and now finds themselves in a bad way, does > not necessarily involve fraud by the seller or lender. It may, > however, involve fraud by the buyer.
> The number of actual cases of fraud will not be nearly enough to > destroy the economy as you stated.
> A mortgage applicant that enters a mortgage contract knowing full well > that they don't have the assets to qualify for said mortgage are > guilty of complicity as well. There is no excuse for not knowing the > difference.
> Of course, you will say that they never would have entered into the > mortgage contract if there wasn't fraud involved. This is (IMO) a bad > assumption.
> I agree, let's fix it. The question is how and what's fair.
> > On Jun 19, 5:07 pm, Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The buyer has some responsibility. If I listened to all of the SPAM I > > > receive, I could cut my mortgage in half, and double everything else.
> > > So, how do we fix it?
> > > My mortgage is 6.00%. It has been fixed for 7 years. So why would I > > > help someone with a 3% ARM?
> > > On Jun 19, 5:45 pm, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
> > > > Foobar <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >How many of these so called sub-prime borrowers would be willing to > > > > >take a 6.5 % 30 year fixed today? The answer to that question is key > > > > >to who is responsible for the mortgage mess.
> > > > There is truth in what you say, but it over-simplifies. While the > > > > greed of the borrowers is a contributing factor, so is the promotion > > > > of such loans, where the mortgage brokers may use sales techniques > > > > that are shady, if not illegal. > > > > -- > > > > Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
> > and how many times must we point out that there is fraud involved in > > a lot of these loans. the buyer who was stupid, was stupid, so were > > the bankers. but it looks like fraud is becoming a larger issue than > > was thought. > > so if you do not want the economy to fall on your head, you better > > worry that someone figures a way to help people get out of this mess.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
hahahahahaha, did you read lisa's newest post about two hedge fund collapsing, and the fear of a ripple effect. reality is still evading you. more beals world utopia.
> > On Jun 20, 10:34 am, me <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 6:03 pm, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 18, 8:42 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > According to Enron's shareholders, the banks ran a ponzi scheme that > > > > > enriched their top execs at the expense of the gullible investors.
> > > > You could essentially argue that of anyone who purchased and then sold > > > > a stock that later dropped in value. However, in order to have a > > > > case, you need to show a little more than the fact that a company went > > > > bankrupt.
> > > Well, the case here though is that there was a frequently used > > > process > > > of hiding losses, and in fact converting them to profits, which > > > required > > > the assistance of the investment banks. That is the charge and what > > > is being litigated. Whether you want to do so here is another story.
> > > > Here's the thing Lisa, I am aware that Enron executives > > > > lied about their finances. I am aware that some of them unloaded > > > > stocks while claiming the company was financially secure. This, in my > > > > opinion, is no different than stealing. I am also aware that Anderson > > > > was probably complicit in the lying. At the very least, it displayed > > > > egregious incompetence in providing unqualified approval of Enron's > > > > financial filings.
> > > > But I am also aware that people like to sue anyone they can > > > > conceivably get money out of. I am also aware that certain people on > > > > Usenet will automatically assume that the investment bankers did > > > > something wrong simply because it supports their political ideology if > > > > they did. And I am perfectly aware that some people will assume, > > > > knowing absolutely nothing about the case, that the Justice Department > > > > dropped support for it because they have a serious case of Bush > > > > Derangement Syndrome.
> > > Well, you are painting a group of people in a specific case based > > > upon a very broad brush. What was done isn't really in dispute. > > > Who knew/understood what was being done is another thing.
> > > The basic shell game was that unprofitable assets of the company > > > were "sold" to other companies that were formed for the specific > > > purpose of unloading unprofitable ventures. They were "sold" > > > by accepting stock in these new companies, often based upon > > > IPO kinds of prices. These companies had officers which were > > > also executives of Enron. So Enron now has stock in a > > > company which took over unprofitable ventures. Their overall > > > books look good because they unloaded an unprofitable venture > > > for a "profit" because the value of the stock they bought was > > > higher than the value of the asset sold. They actually could > > > show and record a profit. Now, Enron would "sell" the stock > > > in the new company, occasionally for a profit, to the officers > > > of the new company. What did those guys pay with? > > > Enron stock. Where'd they get it? Bonuses paid in stock > > > options for having scored profits by selling off that unprofitable > > > venture to another company for a profit.
> > > Could this go on forever? No, and it didn't and it started > > > to collapse and folks knew it but they also knew their only > > > way out personally was to sell all assets that were exposed > > > before anyone found out.
> > > Now who knew? The assertion is that the investment > > > banks helping to set up these other companies must have > > > had some knowledge and that is what the investors are > > > trying to take to court and what the Bush administration is > > > not yet deciding to help them pursue.
> > a typical free market ponzi scheme based on turning stock and debt > > into collateral and money. typical pre 1933 free market conservative > > behavior.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
i wonder if the american people hold the same minority extreme view that you do. social security is the envy of the world. it is more efficient than any private sector company in the world. and of course, you are lying.
Hmm. You really want to stand by this based on how easily I can supposedly dupe the American public to sign a mortgage loan contract?
>social security is the envy of the world. it is more > efficient than any private sector company in the world. and of course, > you are lying.-
Hmm. Really. Prove it.
Lets examine this statement.
You (and everyone else) work for a living and the government collects SS taxes. You rightfully expect those taxes to be returned to you when you retire. But, the gov't spends that money today, hoping it will be replaced in future years. Now, how is this revenue neutral? Just because it worked for 60 years doesn't mean it will work forever.
> i wonder if the american people hold the same minority extreme view > that you do. social security is the envy of the world. it is more > efficient than any private sector company in the world. and of course, > you are lying
Umm, because they don't have a clue as to how things work? And I quote, "it is more efficient than any private sector company in the world".
Of course it is. I can turn a 100% profit every year if I can tax my way into it.
> > > On Jun 20, 10:34 am, me <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 19, 6:03 pm, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 18, 8:42 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > According to Enron's shareholders, the banks ran a ponzi scheme that > > > > > > enriched their top execs at the expense of the gullible investors.
> > > > > You could essentially argue that of anyone who purchased and then sold > > > > > a stock that later dropped in value. However, in order to have a > > > > > case, you need to show a little more than the fact that a company went > > > > > bankrupt.
> > > > Well, the case here though is that there was a frequently used > > > > process > > > > of hiding losses, and in fact converting them to profits, which > > > > required > > > > the assistance of the investment banks. That is the charge and what > > > > is being litigated. Whether you want to do so here is another story.
> > > > > Here's the thing Lisa, I am aware that Enron executives > > > > > lied about their finances. I am aware that some of them unloaded > > > > > stocks while claiming the company was financially secure. This, in my > > > > > opinion, is no different than stealing. I am also aware that Anderson > > > > > was probably complicit in the lying. At the very least, it displayed > > > > > egregious incompetence in providing unqualified approval of Enron's > > > > > financial filings.
> > > > > But I am also aware that people like to sue anyone they can > > > > > conceivably get money out of. I am also aware that certain people on > > > > > Usenet will automatically assume that the investment bankers did > > > > > something wrong simply because it supports their political ideology if > > > > > they did. And I am perfectly aware that some people will assume, > > > > > knowing absolutely nothing about the case, that the Justice Department > > > > > dropped support for it because they have a serious case of Bush > > > > > Derangement Syndrome.
> > > > Well, you are painting a group of people in a specific case based > > > > upon a very broad brush. What was done isn't really in dispute. > > > > Who knew/understood what was being done is another thing.
> > > > The basic shell game was that unprofitable assets of the company > > > > were "sold" to other companies that were formed for the specific > > > > purpose of unloading unprofitable ventures. They were "sold" > > > > by accepting stock in these new companies, often based upon > > > > IPO kinds of prices. These companies had officers which were > > > > also executives of Enron. So Enron now has stock in a > > > > company which took over unprofitable ventures. Their overall > > > > books look good because they unloaded an unprofitable venture > > > > for a "profit" because the value of the stock they bought was > > > > higher than the value of the asset sold. They actually could > > > > show and record a profit. Now, Enron would "sell" the stock > > > > in the new company, occasionally for a profit, to the officers > > > > of the new company. What did those guys pay with? > > > > Enron stock. Where'd they get it? Bonuses paid in stock > > > > options for having scored profits by selling off that unprofitable > > > > venture to another company for a profit.
> > > > Could this go on forever? No, and it didn't and it started > > > > to collapse and folks knew it but they also knew their only > > > > way out personally was to sell all assets that were exposed > > > > before anyone found out.
> > > > Now who knew? The assertion is that the investment > > > > banks helping to set up these other companies must have > > > > had some knowledge and that is what the investors are > > > > trying to take to court and what the Bush administration is > > > > not yet deciding to help them pursue.
> > > a typical free market ponzi scheme based on turning stock and debt > > > into collateral and money. typical pre 1933 free market conservative > > > behavior.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> i wonder if the american people hold the same minority extreme view > that you do. social security is the envy of the world. it is more > efficient than any private sector company in the world. and of course, > you are lying.- Hide quoted text -
> > > On Jun 20, 10:34 am, me <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 19, 6:03 pm, Beal <bealrabbitsla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 18, 8:42 pm, Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > According to Enron's shareholders, the banks ran a ponzi scheme that > > > > > > enriched their top execs at the expense of the gullible investors.
> > > > > You could essentially argue that of anyone who purchased and then sold > > > > > a stock that later dropped in value. However, in order to have a > > > > > case, you need to show a little more than the fact that a company went > > > > > bankrupt.
> > > > Well, the case here though is that there was a frequently used > > > > process > > > > of hiding losses, and in fact converting them to profits, which > > > > required > > > > the assistance of the investment banks. That is the charge and what > > > > is being litigated. Whether you want to do so here is another story.
> > > > > Here's the thing Lisa, I am aware that Enron executives > > > > > lied about their finances. I am aware that some of them unloaded > > > > > stocks while claiming the company was financially secure. This, in my > > > > > opinion, is no different than stealing. I am also aware that Anderson > > > > > was probably complicit in the lying. At the very least, it displayed > > > > > egregious incompetence in providing unqualified approval of Enron's > > > > > financial filings.
> > > > > But I am also aware that people like to sue anyone they can > > > > > conceivably get money out of. I am also aware that certain people on > > > > > Usenet will automatically assume that the investment bankers did > > > > > something wrong simply because it supports their political ideology if > > > > > they did. And I am perfectly aware that some people will assume, > > > > > knowing absolutely nothing about the case, that the Justice Department > > > > > dropped support for it because they have a serious case of Bush > > > > > Derangement Syndrome.
> > > > Well, you are painting a group of people in a specific case based > > > > upon a very broad brush. What was done isn't really in dispute. > > > > Who knew/understood what was being done is another thing.
> > > > The basic shell game was that unprofitable assets of the company > > > > were "sold" to other companies that were formed for the specific > > > > purpose of unloading unprofitable ventures. They were "sold" > > > > by accepting stock in these new companies, often based upon > > > > IPO kinds of prices. These companies had officers which were > > > > also executives of Enron. So Enron now has stock in a > > > > company which took over unprofitable ventures. Their overall > > > > books look good because they unloaded an unprofitable venture > > > > for a "profit" because the value of the stock they bought was > > > > higher than the value of the asset sold. They actually could > > > > show and record a profit. Now, Enron would "sell" the stock > > > > in the new company, occasionally for a profit, to the officers > > > > of the new company. What did those guys pay with? > > > > Enron stock. Where'd they get it? Bonuses paid in stock > > > > options for having scored profits by selling off that unprofitable > > > > venture to another company for a profit.
> > > > Could this go on forever? No, and it didn't and it started > > > > to collapse and folks knew it but they also knew their only > > > > way out personally was to sell all assets that were exposed > > > > before anyone found out.
> > > > Now who knew? The assertion is that the investment > > > > banks helping to set up these other companies must have > > > > had some knowledge and that is what the investors are > > > > trying to take to court and what the Bush administration is > > > > not yet deciding to help them pursue.
> > > a typical free market ponzi scheme based on turning stock and debt > > > into collateral and money. typical pre 1933 free market conservative > > > behavior.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> i wonder if the american people hold the same minority extreme view > that you do. social security is the envy of the world. it is more > efficient than any private sector company in the world. and of course, > you are lying.- Hide quoted text -
|
