Don't get exicted about what the market did today. It's been doing this for almost a year now, whipping back and forth. Yesterday and today it just whipped a little harder in each direction but the results are the same, a net loss over the last two days. Anyone who's been even casually watching the markets for the past 8 or 10 months probably expected a bounce today. We've been getting bounces after bad days for almost a year now with a big net loss overall. http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$INDU&p=D&st=2008-01-01&id=p52085146889
Wow blame one side and keep your eyes closed to what 'your side' did as well. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap7.html Bounces happen often after a crash, nothing new.
I want the government to stay OUT of this. Yes we might see Bank of America and Citi Bank and even Chase Morgan go down, but hey if we print more money or go into the reserve we will devalue the dollar so much it would be better we were trading paper. Even if the government were to get this $700 billion passed. They could only help half the nations home owners if they owned no more than $75,000 on their homes. See why it does not make sense?
Where it does not make sense is your use of fabrications of the facts. 'It's all the dems fault' 'those damn liberal news agencies' 'the DOW rebounded so it's strong' --all paraphrased Be against the bailout, I am as well, just stop being so hypocritical and blind.
Good thread! I am dumb! what is going to happen to the homes if there is no bailout! I know this thead is about- whom is to blame? I just want to know what the effects of no bailout will happen!
I understand the argument of the people who are against it. Unfortunately, none of our choices are good ones. It's a bad situation. I personally think it's riskier to sit by and just let the chips fall where they may. With who knows how much worth of credit default swaps on the market, just allowing institutions to fail and succumb to market pressures could allow a domino effect all through the financial sector. What's happened in the last few weeks could be the tip of the ice berg. And if AIG had been allowed to fail and not been essentially nationalized, it would have had a potentially devastating effect for banks that bought CDSs from AIG. It's not just wall street, if it were I would say screw 'em, too. But this is going to bleed into the rest of the economy. Someone posted about CDSs(credit default swaps) a few days ago. It's true that this is probably what the fed, the treasury and wall street are really worried about. These derivatives were so unregulated and so retardedly abused that no one knows what kind of effect they could cause. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSMAR85972720080918 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images So to go to the original question of the thread, the regulatory system is to blame. Regulations didn't keep up with innovations in the market. When you have foreign money pumping into a system, ingenious ways devised for lenders to transfer risk(securitization), and unregulated wild-west-type derivatives like CDSs, this is what you get.
I hope the gov has a bailout soon! My boyfriend works for Citigroup. I think we should consider the thousands of ppl who would be losing their jobs, too! The ripple effects could be worsen than one could image. WTH, is chitgroup thinking. Could buying Wachovia could be bad for them? What do you thing of them buying Wachovia? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/wachovia_citigroup
Don't know about the fundamentals of Wachovia, but I do know with Wachovia comes a LOT of real estate... and I'm not talking about stuff they loaned on, I mean Wachovia bank buildings every few miles. Lotta overhead there, and now they'll have some in the same market as existing Citi buildings. This wouldnt be my favorite time to be own extra real estate with a specialized structure on it. If the market turns around thatd be ok, but holding on til then could be interesting.
As long as people keep paying their mortgages they will not lose their homes. However the economy worsening and causing unemployment to rise. More people will be unable to afford the payments on overpriced houses in the next year. Causing more bad mortgage paper. $700 billion will not solve the problem. The US will have to spend itself into bankrupty and who is going to bail out the US?
Maybe we can get a loan from all the recent execs of Fannie, Freddie, Goldman Sachs, Lehman, et al. They seem to be the only ones making money outta bankrupting the economy.
Nice question. Here is your answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487
Reminds me of a 'troofer' video. Stick your head in the sands all you want, lets not forget what the current administration ran on. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap7.html
It's becoming readily apparent there are worse places to stick ones head that afford even less light. The fact that Bush said that doesnt change the fact that his administration made attempts to sound the alarm in Congress about the "systemic risk" presented by Fannie and Freddies out of control practices and the fact that they posed a threat to the larger economy... and had been shot down by a bipartisan team in Congress that were frankly bought and paid for. The problem is NOT loaning to minorities, that is a non-issue. The problem is making loans that arent adequately supported and treating them as if they were. It doesnt matter what color the guy that defaults is, the hit on the securities bundled to use as assets is the same. That Congress was in control of the Dems and prominent Democrats led the charge to defeat GOP led attempts to rein Fannie and Freddie in is a simple historical fact. I wont bother reposting the links to multiple news articles from the time that prove it unless you want to deny that it happened. If you watch CNN or MSNBC it'd seem to be a "fact" that nobody saw this coming. If you watch Fox you'll see taped clips of the Democrats irately saying the GOP was trying to fix something that wasnt broken. You'll see references to McCain standing on the floor of the Senate saying... Source: GovTrack - FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005 (GOP Sponsored - McCain was 1 of 3 cosponsors) If McCain loses this election because this problem that tracks the deepest of its roots to Fannie and Freddie is hung on McCain and the GOP, that's politics. Stuff happens. That said, it is revisionist history to pretend the Democrats always wanted to regulate the GSEs and the evil GOP stopped them. It wasnt stopped by Dems alone but it is not a shock to discover the top 4 recipients of money from Fannie were Dodd, Obama, Schumer, and Barney Franks. This is one that, if you really are independent, you should be calling 'em on. If you arent lock-stock-and-barrel pro-Obama as you claim you arent, you might try doing that. I'll be glad to compile a list of links to the accumulations of proof to that fact, but I think you oughta be able to find it easily if you arent just opposed to seeing it.
If the government gets involved its going to make matters worse. The government has no money to buy these mortgages. So they will either have to print more money (which will devalue the dollar more) or borrow money from the reserve. Of course they could always take it back in taxes which is bound to happen if this bill passes. Who voted to give Freddie Mac so much leeway? Who is taking money from its top supporters in Washington? Enlighten yourself please http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html These wicked banks need to go down. Bank of America, Citibank and all the rest. And yes I do have savings in them (Bank of Ameirca) but you know what, their unscrupulous activities caused this and nothign will fix it unless the market corrects itself.
Ahh yes I could be more informed by stating dems = bad and republicans = good. Oh but Republicans are against regulations I thought?. hmmmm A republican president and republican house/senate could not get anything done. Bush campaigns on record home ownership, but yeah it's all them damn dems fault. Doesn't take away from the fact Bush was in power, Republicans controlled both the senate and house for some time, while Bush campaigned on 'record' home ownership. I rarely watch CNN, I do watch MSNBC on occasion, I used to watch Fox religiously above all else. Until I found it so biased and out of touch with reality I had to stop watching it most of the time. Talk about 'revisionist history' when I am blaming both sides, not just one. I do blame both sides. If you honestly don't have your head stuck in the sand you'll see both sides share at least some responsibility. I also never said I was 'independent', I simply don't support either loons currently running.
I don't give a pass to the dems, so nice failed attempt. You however like so many others in here give a pass to the Republicans. That is what I have a problem with. Kind of like your bash on Obama for giving 'tax credits' for insurance when McCain is for a similar item. Calling BS and bias for what it is does not = me supporting the other side.
Anybody have answers to these questions? What is the solution to the markets? How are we going to bail out of this economic situation? Are we going to let everything fail and start from srcatch? Will the markets plunging cause another great depression?
Not only did Bush attempt to stave of the problem, but McCain did as well. Both were shot down... As early as 04 and as recently at 07.... The housing boom and home ownership records Bush was referring to occurred post 9/11 and as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts. I'm one of those recipients. My tax cuts were large enough to put a down payment on a house and get out of the condo living I had been doing for so long. Fannie, Fredie and all the other democrap created low income, no income entitlements is not where the growth was initially. The problem is, someone else has their head buried even deeper in the popularity contest to realize the difference between reality and imagination. The record home ownership we say was the result of job creation, tax cuts, and other incentives to home ownership. Not the irresponsible lending practices of democrats and their friends at institutions that lent money to people they knew would never pay back the money. People seem to forget who was and is in power while this has been going on. Democrats. It would be a complete waste of time. Given several people have become so out of touch with reality that they have actually begun to believe their own inaccuracies about the revisionist history they are following. That is a large part of the problem. These guys tend to close their mind to any other source of news than previously mentioned. You could sit here and list ever single recorded conversation of Maxine Waters saying Reid and Fannie are the greatest thing since sliced bread and it still would not matter.... BUSH FUCKED UP EVERYTHING THAT THERE EVER WAS... Hell... If we did deep enough even the anti-religion crowd could find a BUSH hanging Christ on the cross at some point in time. You're preaching to the choir here... In 05 and again in 07.. both times shot down.. Actually, I think Kerry was at the top, but yes... All the same assholes that are crying foul are the ones that took money from the places that failed. Jesus, just take a look at Acorn... For those that are glued to only one news source, or play the popular game of follow the leader, they are gonna be "like what"? He's not independent. He does not know what he is. He's whoever is the most popular choice at the time.
I respectively disagree, Rob. I got into commercial real estate in the early 80's. After struggling like crazy I finally hit it with a couple of niches. One of em was disposing of bank properties after the massive consolidation of S&L's in the early 80's. Lots of excess properties. Granted I was working in the DC market of suburbs and city. It was a depressed soft market like most of the country but not as distressed as much of the country. Truthfully I didn't know squat. I just worked non stop to pay off debt and be able to afford hamburger and lettuce. Nice thing about bank properties, at least the leased and owned branch offices is that most of em are real well located. I bet a big company like Wachovia has lots of nice properties in most locations. Even if the rents or prices are high, the location preference usually makes them VERY desirable. I moved every single property I listed, including excess office space. I worked my lil fanny off. Ultimately I made a name in that niche business and handled properties for 4 different institutions. If I was active I'd high tail it to the Wachovia/ City Bank boys and sell my services as THE MAN!!!!! Meanwhile, I'm for the bailout. Look, there are no good alternatives. I see a slow but steady crash coming down our backs. It is so easy to talk about it. You see jobs go down the kazoo and you multiply problems so much worse. I have no feel for this stuff...and again my reference point is the DC commercial real estate markets, including the period when the entire market crashed, burned and collapsed in an industry depression starting in 1989. Without knowing values on the bad real estate loans I'd try and buy em up at around $0.25 on the dollar. (based on my experience). The only caveat would be to not buy em so low it drives the banks that are selling them into bankruptcy. Then I'd bust my fanny every which way to put these damaged properties and notes back on the market. Its not impossible. Its been done before. There are wily investors in the market doing this kind of stuff right now on a micro basis. With collapses of the banks there will be plenty of experienced note buyers around that can buy at aggressive prices. Similarly there are experienced real estate people that can resell into markets and make some kind of money off it. It just takes lots of work. Back to Rob's topic. Here in DC, Citi had about 4% of deposits and Wachovia a lot....maybe 15-20%. I don't see a lot of excess disposition. But boy if I was in a market where there was excesses and overlap between Citi and Wachovia, and was 25-35 I'd be knockin on Citi's doors right now and presenting myself (professionally) as the hard workin answer dude to their property problems.
Yep sure looks like it was because of 'Tax Cuts' hell even Bush and the White House claims 'tax cuts' is the reason for it right? More lies being told by our resident lie teller. 'most popular' choice even though I say both sides have some blame for the mess, that is nowhere near 'popular' I do not support either McCain or Obama, yet again not very 'popular' I do not support the bailout one bit. Nothing due to 'popularity' everything to do with principles.