I'm going to explain this thing to you. And you're going to go out and explain it to everyone you know. And they're going to explain it to everyone THEY know. And then maybe the people who are preventing the solution to this problem will shut the fuck up and let the solution happen before none of us have jobs to pay our taxes with.
Some of you know that I worked in the financial sector in New York right after I graduated from college. Well, here's the whole story. I worked for a British commercial paper brokerage firm called Eurobrokers on the 31st floor of Tower One. We traded commercial paper and foreign currency and arbitrage and swaps. We didn't trade stocks or bonds or commodities. Basically, we did a lot of trading that the average person don't know exists.
This is how it worked. All of our customers were banks. Not small banks like the place you probably have your checking account, but big international players like Société General and the Royal Bank of Scotland. The only bank I'd ever heard of before I went to work there was Citibank, and it wasn't the biggest. We didn't deal with the little guys. I remember one day PNB (Pennsylvania National Bank) tried to trade with us and their offer sat on the far left of the board. No one would touch it because no one knew their track record.
So basically how we did business was that Soc Gen would call up on the phones (that didn't ring) and say to their rep in our office, "We have 100 to go overnight at 8 and a quarter." This meant that Société General wanted to sell $100 million of risk to a buyer who would pay 8.25% for 24 hours. The risk they were selling was based on loans made by them and by other smaller banks whose risk they bought into.
Most of the loans we made were overnight or 3 months. The occasional 6 month would get done, but the 12 mo, 2 yr and 5 yr sections of the board were almost always dead. This was a fast-moving market and no one wanted to accept risk for the long term.
Flash to two years later when I worked for Iyo Bank on the 79th floor of the same building. Iyo Bank was too small to deal directly with a firm like Eurobrokers, so we bought parts of the risk of banks like Mitsui and Sumitomo. I forget who it was, but one of the big Japanese banks had just made a loan to AMR Corp (the company that owned American Airlines) and my boss and I were trying to decide if Iyo wanted to buy into that loan for $10 million. If we did, then the bank that made the loan would be trading our risk alongside theirs in any commercial paper trading they do.
So you see, all the loans get bundled together as "risk" and no one keeps track of what individual loans banks are trading. They're only doing it for overnight, and the transaction is over before you can think about it, really. It's only a paper transaction anyway. It's not like Sumitomo is suddenly going to send the AMR loan paperwork to Iyo Bank. By the time the paperwork was couriered to our office, the loan term would be over!
In the sub-prime crisis, little local banks and mortgage companies bundled their loans together and sold them to bigger banks and mortgage companies. They in turn sold them to these international banks that tradae in the commercial paper market. When the commercial paper market trades, it does so in a sea of screaming traders with a phone on each ear. It doesn't stop to look at paperwork and investigate what risk they're absorbing. It's not the way it works. These commercial lenders make deals based on the reputation of the banks involved.
Let me say that again because that is what is at the heart of this breakdown in the system: COMMERCIAL LENDERS MAKE DEALS BASED ON THE REPUTATION OF THE BANKS INVOLVED.
When I was working the floor, we would take any loan Soc Gen or RBS had to sell, but we would want a better rate for Japanese banks' loans. This is becuase in the 1980s, Japanese banks were still fairly new to the marketplace. They had lots of money to trade, but they hadn't been around long enough to have a long-term reputation. So we were cautious with them. I remember that I used to market the "Prime" banks on the board in green. They routinely traded more money at lower rates than all the other banks. And I specifically remember one day when my mentor had about $250 million from Soc Gen to trade and everyone in the place went nuts making her offers. She went home that day without about six figures worth of commissions!
I remember another day GMAC popped up on the board with some loans to trade. We kinda looked at them and thought, "Huh?" No one took their trades that day. They were too new. It didn't matter that we all knew who GMAC was. They had no reputation as a player in our market. So we didn't trade with them.
You see? Reputation is what counts and banks are very conservative about making these blind trades with banks they don't know and trust.
So now you understand why banks have no idea how many bad debts they assumed in this sub-prime crisis. Banks traded with other banks that they trusted, having no idea that those banks had bought bad loans. No one knew. Not even the banks who made the loans.
Let me explain something else: it is NOT Wall Street's fault!
It's Main Street's!
Let me explain that. About three years ago, I bought a house. When I went to my mortgage company, they told me that my credit was so good, I could have any amount of mortgage I wanted. So I tested this. I showed them a property in Bucks County -- a horse farm -- that was selling for $2.8 million. They said, "Sure!"
!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?
Ten years ago, I had a hard time getting a mortgage on a $114,000 house when both I and my husband had good, permanent jobs aming close to six figures. Now I was applying for a loan with a part-time job, income from a small business, no other assets, and no permanency whatsoever. And they were going to give me $2.8 million?!?!?!!
(I didn't buy the horse farm. I'm not an idiot...)
THIS is the problem. Mortgage companies saw that house prices were increasing rapidly, so they made scketchy loans to whomever had a good credit score. The idea was that, if they couldn't pay the loan in a year, they could refinance. And because the housing market was soaring, the amount of equity in their house would make up the shortcomings of their finances. It was a brilliant scheme as long as the housing market kept going up.
But, of course, it didn't. Last summer, prices started to fall, and by August, mortgage companies had a problem. I remember because we were in a 3-year ARM and we were trying to refinance into a fixed rate. We applied for the new mortgage in April, but our mortgage guy was a complete lazy ass and didn't actually get us bought until July. At that point the value of our home dropped by something like $70,000. The mortgage they offered us would no longer cover the amount of the ARM we wanted to replace. So we were stuck with the old mortgage.
People have been complaining that the sub-prime mortgage thing is the fault of speculators. That's true. But it's not just people who bought more than they could afford who are getting soaked. It's people like me. I bought only as much house as I could handle on my income, and I'm in trouble anyway!
Wall Street didn't come to me and make me a mortgage. The guy at Weichert Realtors did. Then then he sold my loan. And then they sold it again. And again. It was sold three times in the first three months I had the mortgage.
Now GMAC has it and they're trading it on the commercial paper market in NY, in one of those offices like the one I used to work in. Luckily my loan's not in default. But it so easily could have been...
So it's not your big-time Wall Street traders who have created the problem. They trusted GMAC to make good mortgage loans like they always have before. But a lot of homebuyer defaulted. GMAC was too greedy to get their money and wasn't stringent enough in their loan-making practices. And now a good deal of the loans being traded have rot at their center.
Is it the fault of Wall Street that mortgage companies who used to be reputable suddenly started making bad loans? Wall Street doesn't spend months going over every loan in the portfolio they're trading. Someone screams, "I've got $25 to go at 10%!" And someone else screams, "I'll take $5 of that!" And a deal is done in a second. That's how it works.
So now you see the problem. Stop being so provincial and blaming this on these Big Bad Corporate Raiders! Stop blaming the Titans of Wall Street! This was the work of your cousin Joe down at the bank and your friend Margaret at the Realty office. A whole bunch of people made a whole bunch of little loans that were bad. And the mouse roared and shook the pillars of the financial industry.
Now... This bailout package. I am SICK TO DEATH of people making it political. Check your history books. Do you know why the Great Depression of the 1930s happened? BECAUSE OF A REFUSAL TO ENACT POLICY!!! Washington figured that the people who lost money and the business and banks who collapsed deserved what they got, and let them fail. When Roosevelt got in office, the first thing he did was pass the New Deal, which still took ten years and a World War to fix everything.
The problem here is that, as wrong as the failing businesses might have been, you cannot stand by and watch the financial sector collapse. You have to prop it up. You have to throw good money after bad.
What would you prefer? Paying higher taxes or having no job? I'll tell you what: I would prefer to pay half of my income in taxes than have my business go under. If my business goes under, I will literally have nothing. If they take my house, my cars, my printers... they take everything. I have no trust fund, no rich relatives, no one with a big bank account who will let me sleep on their couch. I will be homeless. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!
And where will you be? Is your company doing so well that they won't lay you off? Will your employer be able to make payroll in a month if the financial sector goes under? What bank issues your paychecks? Will it be there next week?
This is NOT the time for partisan bullshit! This is not the time for whining about "Wall Street versus Main Street". If we don't act quickly (and it's already been a work week's worth of nothing), our economy will collapse. And our economy is the biggest in the world. Do you think that Europe and China and Japan and Australia are going to do just fine without us? Do you think that your job will be secure when your boss can't pay the rent anymore?
Make no mistake. This is huge. And something must be done IMMEDIATELY!!!
The damage is done. We're in the middle of a hurricane and we're sinking! Let's not argue over who put the hole in the boat!
The patient is on the table and his heart has stopped. Is now really the time to discuss treatment options?!?
I've turned commenting on, but if you post ANYTHING remotely political, I will delete your comments and ban you. I am not in the mood for any "The Evil Republicans" "The Wasteful Democrats" bullshit. This is SERIOUS!
- [economics] Okay. Listen up!
2008-09-26 12:16 pm (UTC)
What I do not like is the talking heads calling any bail out plan a turn to Socialism. I just do not see how buying and then selling the debt and making repayable loans is socialism. Lets just get a ball rolling and adjust as needed.
2008-09-26 12:26 pm (UTC)
We must never forget that banks (and mortgage companies) are in business to make money. Usually they don't make bad debts because default costs more than they make on the deal. But with housing prices skyrocketing, suddenly the amount they could sell a foreclosed home for was more than the amount of the defaulted loan. And even before it got to that point, the defaultor could be offered another loan at a higher rate based on the equity in his house (that he has because of soaring prices) and the mortgage company would make money again. But when house prices fall, it all goes under.
This was a case of doing business with a reputable lender for 50 years, and suddenly they slip in some shit with all the good stuff you've been trading with them. That little piece of shit explodes and it gets all over everything. And now you can't tell what's what.
Washington Mutual went under this morning. WaMu!!! This is becoming terrifying. No one even noticed the housing prices results numbers yesterday. The Market was too fixated on the circle-jerkers in DC!
This Socialism bullshit is exactly that. We need a bailout because the system is too far gone to fix itself. This isn't about lining the pockets of the uber-rich. It isn't about the government taking control and ruining the free market. It's about using the paddles on the GD flat-lined patient on the table before we find ourselves filling out the death certificate!
2008-09-26 12:44 pm (UTC)
Europe is watching the USA. It's been doing so for a while, but nobody was really worried as nobody actually thought it could affect us. Lately the tension has been rising, and we're not so sure.
I picked a hell of a time to get interested in investing.
2008-09-26 12:58 pm (UTC)
This morning, the Fed and the Bank of England worked a deal with the European Central Bank to inject $10 billion into the system for one week, just to prop it up until the idiots in Washington stop doing a song and dance about what they clearly don't understand. The central banks understand that action is needed immediately, so they're doing everything they can until the asshats we elected pull their thumbs out of their collective asses.
Simple truth -- if the banks are too scared to lend money to each other, the entire WORLD economy collapses. What do you think would happen if no one bought anything from Microsoft for a day? They would fail. One single day. The banks don't make money from your interest payments. They make money by lending your money to other banks and charging them interest. If those inter-bank loans don't happen, the banks don't make money. And when big, secure banks like WaMu suddenly announce they're going out of business, why should banks lend to anyone at all?
Most people don't understand this because they have no idea that banks are constantly borrowing from and lending to each other. But it is an essential part of the way banking works. And if it stays silent because banks are too scared to move, everything grinds to a halt.
But our "leaders" are too interested in their own political futures to actually do anything that will benefit us. They need to do the "Save the American People!" song and dance while our economy is going to need a heart transplant rather than a pacemaker.
I wish the Fed could execute the bailout on their own. I wish our Congress didn't have to vote on it. These people have no comprehension of the financial markets and they're just trying to pander to the public perception of the crisis -- that some fat cats in Wall Street are doing something wrong.
No. Your Aunt Susie at the Real Estate office made you a loan when she shouldn't have. And it got sold. And that got sold. And a whole lot of other people did the same thing.
That's what happened. Now it's time to fix it. We've spent over a year hoping the wounds would heal on their own, and they're getting bigger instead.
2008-09-26 12:50 pm (UTC)
I disagree somewhat with you on the lack of culpability on the part of Wall Street; if investment banks like Lehmann Brothers were willing to take on blind risk, then they are as much at fault as the shmoes at Joes Crooked Mortgage Company who sold the bad loans in the first place.
Part of the problem is that the whole system is essentially a bunch of dominoes - the bad mortgages were, by themselves, not a large amount of money. They were a contributing factor, which in turn caused other things to happen, which rebounded in a certain way over here, which caused this structure to weaken, which in turn brought down this smaller structure...etc etc.
I agree with you, Something Must Be Done. The problem I have is that no one really knows what that something is. Paulson's people admit hat 700 billion is just a big number they made up - it has no bearing whatsoever on the actual problem. It would, for instance, MORE THAN cover EVERY SINGLE sub-prime ot at-risk mortgage, with literally hundreds of billions left over.
Nobidy really understands how to get a handle on the problem. "Relevant experts" virtually all agree that something needs to be done posthaste, but are unable to agree exactly what that something is. There seems to be something of a consensus, however, that Ol' Hank is in over his head.
I hope earnestly that a solution can be found quickly; failing that, a fast resolution to throw money at the problem will help more than doing nothing at all.
However, I do agree with the principal that any company that accepts a bail-out must cut executive compensation to minuscule levels - essentially, once again requiring personal assumption of risk. I know that CEO empoyment contracts are written to preclude anything of the sort, but legislation can be written to trump contract law.
I know that the current solution of nationalising financial firms if socialism on the French model. Tough. I've never been a fan of deregualtion to begin with. Not that government oversight is infallible; it's just that the government can be held accountable every four years or so.
I am nervous. No, I am terrified that we are looking at the edge of a financial abyss just as deep and wide at the Great Depression. I break into a cold sweat thinking about how we would survive if
2008-09-26 01:15 pm (UTC)
So you and I are in a similar boat. Mine will just sink faster.
I could care less what the CEOs do. I only care about myself. If the economy goes under, no one needs to buy any patterns. I will be living in a tent. Seriously.
I'm not saying that Wall Street wasn't culpable. I'm trying to explain how it works. Let me say that part again -- when a known lender calls in with debt to sell, no one asks about the composition of that debt. The only thing that matters is that this bank has traded in the market for years and years and it's trades have always been reputable. The trade literally happens in the space of: "I've got this!" "I'll take it!" There is no time to even say, "Is it corporate debt or home loans," you see?
So the way Wall Street traded loans between banks allowed this to happen. They traded on faith, and that was obviously stupid. But it has been working for 100 years.
2008-09-26 12:51 pm (UTC)
I ran into the same silly lending practices when I bought my condo five years ago. They would have written me a much larger mortgage if I'd asked for it, but I worked with a woman who had maxed out on her mortgage and I saw how stressed out she was about it. I figured out what I could afford, and then borrowed a little less (which probably saved my condo when gas prices started rising). My mortgage is with my credit union, and as far as I know, it has never been sold.
I think the reason why so many people are upset about the "rescue plan" is they don't understand where the money would be going. And they don't want the CEOs to profit, they want to know that the little guy is going to keep his job. And they don't see how that's going to happen.
2008-09-26 01:01 pm (UTC)
I am completely and utterly terrified. You know I'm not a doomsayer. But I'm knowledgeable enough about this to see where the danger really lies.
2008-09-26 12:59 pm (UTC)
Want to run for President Kass? I'll vote for you. ;)
We are house hunting and the realtors just don't understand why we aren't looking in the high end of our "available" area - we have one full time income - I refuse to buy a house that takes half of that income to own, no matter WHAT the bank says. We can't afford that in the real world. I've watched to many people get in WAY over their heads on a house. I feel that same way about the credit companies - they push people to get way in over their heads and then wonder why people file bankruptcy. STOP GIVING THEM CREDIT! Sheesh. Ok. Done ranting.
I missed your posts!
2008-09-26 01:16 pm (UTC)
Not a chance. But I may be looking for a new job soon...
2008-09-26 01:22 pm (UTC)
I bought a house 4 years ago, and our Mortgage had a pretty impressive arm. But the banks took a grand advantage of that to my understanding (I sadly can't live there for reasons I'd elaborate on over a cup of coffee sometime), and my understanding is that the mortgage has gone up about $500 more than it was when I left. Fortunately I had a really good mortgage broker who wouldn't let us get a crazy mortgage (our house cost 130,000), but now while I wait for my ex to buy me out, I know that's not going to be the best decision right now because it will not be worth what we paid for it. So I hope and pray that this bailout will help get things back on their feet so I won't be laying in bed afraid I'll have to move back to Baltimore, or that my job will disappear, etc.
2008-09-26 01:27 pm (UTC)
I self-regulated myself into taking only the mortgage I could afford. But two weeks before closing, I lost that part-time job and got sick so I couldn't get another one. It's only because the business has done so well that I still have a house.
My original mortgage is a three year ARM. I took it on the belief that I would be able to refinance before the three years were up. But you read about our inability to get a mortgage big enough. And now our credit is not as good as it once was. Year three happens in November. I'm not a speculator or someone who borrowed more than I could afford. But what I was led to believe is not how things happened, and I'm a more informed borrower than the average person.
Do you know that August housing prices were reported yesterday and the markets didn't even react to them? That's scary.
2008-09-26 01:27 pm (UTC)
I agree about personal responsibility and people being in control of their own purchasing decisions and living with their choices. One question that I hope doesn't steer too close to political (believe me I'm trying to avoid it). Plan one include buying the "toxic paper" and putting it in a "lockbox" and letting it out slowly. Plan two is going the loan route.
1) IYO, will either plan restore confidence?
2) Does one have larger upsides than the other (as far as potential payback to the taxpayers.
I honestly don't know the answer which is why I ask. Thanks in advance.
2008-09-26 01:40 pm (UTC)
The fear is that these banks will cease lending to each other (because when you watch Lehman Bros and then WaMu fail, you kinda get too scared to move). And if they do, they won't lend to anyone else. And if mortgages aren't made and commercial loans don't keep businesses going, it will be like removing money from the system and everything will stop.
I believe that the solution to this problem must be swift and decisive to restore confidence in the markets. On Monday, the world markets rallied on the announcement of a bailout scheme over the weekend. But all week, things have been plummeting as Congress screws around.
My preference is the "lockbox" approach. There is nothing that will correct the toxic paper. It's done. The solution is to throw money at the hole it created in the loan portfolios so those portfolios will have the value they reportedly had. Then banks will have the confidence to trade with each other again.
You see, banks traded with each other on the basis of their confidence in the other's rep. When the banking sector started realising that even the world's more conservative and reputable banks (Lehman Brothers for God's sake!) were trading in junk, they stopped lending to each other. Banks need their confidence restored so this market will operate again. And then they'll make loans to our employers so they can make payroll. And then they'll make loans to us so we can trade in our cars or get home improvement loans to increase the value of our houses and give a job to the contractors who aren't doing so well in this market.
"Trickle down" is a term no one likes right now, but that's how the economy works. If the banks don't make loans to each other, they might as well go out of business because then they're not doing any business at all. They have to trade with each other so they can lend to us so we can keep putting cash into the economy and keep our community businesses going.
I'm afraid I have very little knowledge of taxes and I really can't say how one plan will benefit taxpayers over the other. All I can say is that not acting decisively will bankrupt the system, people will lose jobs, and then there will be no incomes to tax.
2008-09-26 01:38 pm (UTC)
A couple of years ago I took out a Home Equity loan to do some long overdue home improvements. Last year I rolled the two together into a fixed rate mortgage -- at an immensely better rate than I was able to get originally because I'd cleaned up my credit.
And I did all of this while keeping what I owed down to around 65=70% of the value of the property. So, despite the falling prices, I don't think I owe more than what the place is currently worth. Yet. Especially as most of what I spent the money on has been things like re-siding, new windows, insulation, et al., which have increased the real value of the house. So while it's lost value, it hasn't lost as much value as it could have.
2008-09-26 01:41 pm (UTC)
2008-09-26 01:45 pm (UTC)
When I worked at a TV station in Atlantic City, we aired about three mortgage and real estate realated shows a week and usually shot a paid program for a type of mortgage. That was back in late 2005. By August of 2006, the bubble finally burst, and two of our weekly shows stopped airing and we had no more orders to shoot mortgage paid programing, though, all the financial folks and real estate people on the remaining show insisted that everything was fine, the bubble hadn't burst and that it was a great time to buy a house. By August of 2007, when I left the station, only a few on the show conceded that the bubble had burst.
All those two years, I heard real estate and mortgage people tout that anyone could own a home, if your credit was at least 580, or if you had a job--that anyone could do it. They didn't tell people about the dark side of these crazy mortgages, like if you got a 'pick a payment' mortgage that it was possible that you could be paying, and your balance would go up instead of down. Or that with reverse mortgages, your loved one have to pay for the house again (or lose money when they sell it) after you die.
This is a story of greed. The small-time folks in the financial sector got too greedy. And I have to agree--I'd rather have a job and pay higher taxes than lose my car, default on my loans, and be forced to move back in with my parents.
2008-09-26 01:50 pm (UTC)
2008-09-26 02:02 pm (UTC)
2008-09-26 02:09 pm (UTC)
2008-09-26 02:56 pm (UTC)
My concern is about the lack of oversight, the Section 8 that gives Paulson unlimited discretion. What are your thoughts on that part of it? Should I not be worried about that part?
2008-09-26 03:00 pm (UTC)
2008-09-26 03:00 pm (UTC)
I am not in the mood for any "The Evil Republicans" "The Wasteful Democrats" bullshit. This is SERIOUS!
Amen.
2008-09-26 03:05 pm (UTC)
Thanks for understanding my rantiness. I'm so sick of politics screwing things up and the media whipping people into a frenzy over things they don't understand.
I've tried my best to stay positive about this whole thing, but I can very easily see the Dems and Reps fiddling while Rome burns.
2008-09-26 04:32 pm (UTC)
You and the entire world financial markets! When the bailout was announced, the markets actually rallied! Now they don't know what to think.
The bailout must happen. I just hope all this "oversight" doesn't deprive it of its power to fix things. I really, really wish the Fed had the power to do this on its own. It would have acted months ago!
(I am also not in support of CEOs who don't do their jobs and are compensated in the multis. But I *am* in support of those who run good companies and take home huge profits. It's hard for us to tell them apart from the outside, I think.)
2008-09-26 04:55 pm (UTC)
2008-09-26 04:56 pm (UTC)
2008-09-26 05:04 pm (UTC)
Scary times, man.
2008-09-26 05:10 pm (UTC)
And our landlords were in good financial circumstances. So many other people aren't.
2008-09-26 05:12 pm (UTC)
2008-09-26 05:14 pm (UTC)
2008-09-26 06:09 pm (UTC)
The bailout sadly needs to happen, and it needs to happen quickly, but it desperately needs to not happen thoughtlessly. Carte blanche for one man to use the treasury any way he sees fit has numerous historical examples to illustrate just how bad that turns. There needs to be limitations on how it can be used, and there needs to be provisions in place for some of the costs to be recovered if it works, so the taxpayer sees a little return on the investment he's about to be forced to make. Fortunately, some of the scariest provisions in the first draft have been addressed. What a pity that it couldn't have been addressed a few years ago, before it all blew up. It's not like we couldn't see it coming.
What scares me most is that it might not work.
It is good to hear from a voice with inside experience, even if I don't completely agree with the analysis. Thanks to
2008-10-02 09:55 am (UTC)
A bad debt here and there in a bank's portfolio doesn't really affect anything. Because of the way loans are bundled together and traded, the good covers the bad and always has. So there's really nothing to worry about. Hell, you couldn't find out what was in these trades if you wanted to. It's not like there's a list somewhere that says, "This trade consists of the home loans on houses A,B,C,D...ZZ and business XYZ... and land purchase 1343247980..." It just isn't that discrete. Do you know where every dollar in your wallet came from? Can you tell me which serial number came from your paycheck and which from Aunt Sally and which from your savings? See, it's this "all mixed up" way of doing things that messed things up this time. Usually that is precisely the method by which bad debt is covered, but there was so much that it didn't work.
When this started, the banks thought it would work the way it usually does -- bad debt gets "goodified" by the good debt it's traded with. It was a loss for the bank, but when it's traded for a return, it becomes in essence good debt. The trade kinda purifies it. It makes it worth something.
But like anything, when you have too much of something, it goes bad. And the banking industry truly had no idea how much bad debt is out there. And honestly, they still don't know. It couldn't be that much.
But here is the fundamental reason Congress must act: IF THE BANKS STOP TRADING WITH EACH OTHER, MORE BANKS WILL FAIL. Banks aren't failing because they made bad loans. They are failing because other banks are trusting anyone enough to trade with them right now. Our government must do something to get those banks to have confidence in each other again.
Without the credit market, our entire economy stops working. Businesses buy their raw materials on credit. They pay their rent on credit. They pay each other on credit. They even pay their employees on credit. If banks stopped extending credit tomorrow, everything would grind to a halt.
2008-09-27 01:25 am (UTC)
I'm a Financial Idiot -- I don't know squat about economics -- but I understand what you say and how you say it.
What do you think about the idea of the Swedish Model?
2008-10-02 09:43 am (UTC)
2008-09-29 12:25 pm (UTC)
I'm just sayin'.
2008-09-29 12:58 pm (UTC)
2008-09-29 08:15 pm (UTC)
And the appraisers can't be left out. The comparables we'd see were sometimes in different neighborhoods completely!
I don't understand why ARMs were being pushed so much when loan rates were at historic lows. Of course, they're going to go up!
(Sorry about always leaving incoherent rants in your journal) ;)
2008-09-29 11:06 pm (UTC)
Sigh. You're right that we need to do it, but it still stings that someone who works their ass off and pays their bills winds up paying the price to bail out the irresponsible idiots. I still don't have a TV hooked up, or an internet connection at home, because it's not in the budget, yet the jerk who bailed on his mortgage probably has another house with his 42 inch plasma and every premium channel known to man.
I don't have to LIKE it, even if I know it's necessary.
Stuid Congress
2008-09-29 11:29 pm (UTC)
Hey, I just found out the market went down 700 points - why didn't I know this earlier - because I've been in a vehicle for 5 hours, spent 36 out of the preceeding 50 hours working an event - the Celtic Classic in Bethlehem, PA where it rained and some vendors got literally flooded out by 12" water in their booths.
Okay - botttom line - October 1987 the Dow went down 22+ in one day. And people went nuts. Today it went down LESS than 10%. Cool it people. And do not stop buying and selling. That is the way to economic death.
Buy RH patterns, Buy whatever, Sell whatever. And kick your congressional rep in the posterior if necessary. Tell them you will not vote for them if they play politics.
Christine
2008-09-30 08:44 pm (UTC)
Congress
2008-10-01 02:24 am (UTC)
And sometimes at folks in their own party.