28 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou still gotta laugh man. Just because their destroying your country doesn't mean you should allow them to destroy your ability to laugh at the whole mess. In fact, you might say its all ya got left!!
Read the websites I provided and you won't be joking for long.
28 Feb 09
Originally posted by Metal Brainwhy did AIG have to pay while European entities invested in the same kind of debt did not?
AIG insured many of the American mortgage backed securities that lost so much value. When the housing values fell AIG had to pay up. AIG had other financial exposures they had to pay for as well, but the mortgages were the primary reason.
28 Feb 09
Originally posted by dystoniacno, you would not be accurate.
So, would I be accurate to say that the illustrious Barney Frank, through Freddie Mack and Fanny Mae, allowed people who could not afford a house in the first place purchase one through susidized motgages. Now, these people cannot afford the mortgage, or the house is below market value of the original price, and now responsible home buyers will have to 'bail' them out?
Barney, Freddie and Fannie should bear their share of blame, but they didn't allow people who could not afford a house to buy one.
What are liar loans?
Who were the two largest institutions who actually originated the majority of subprime or alt-a products, among them the largest proportion of liar loans?
28 Feb 09
Originally posted by RSMA1234pretty vague.
Its not the insurance arm that caused the collaspe, its the investment arm with its "dodgy investments"
The losses of the investment arm where greater then all the profits from the group
The insurance arm in London for exmaple is very profitable
what were the "dodgy investments" and who else got into them?
who regulates those particular "dodgy investments" in the USA?
28 Feb 09
Originally posted by whodeywhew. glad you added the last line. That is funny. Insane, but funny.
It s governmental conspiracy to destroy the US ecomony so as to increase the influence and power of government through such actions as recently nationalizing Citi Bank. Then they can implement some sort of one world order as the world becomes one great socialistic system. To do this, however, the US must be brought to the economic level of all the other wor ...[text shortened]... musing right wing dialogue that I'm sure you have heard before. Anything for a good laugh. 😛
28 Feb 09
Originally posted by uzlessthank you. my question answered sir.
Your question answered sir. (The best part is the last half)
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the core insurance business units of AIG (NYSE:AIG). The company’s downfall was an accumulation of misplaced bets on credit default swaps.
By the best estimates of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) the notional value of credit default swap ...[text shortened]... wel?
http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/the-inside-story-of-the-collapse-of-aig/5641
this is an exemplary way to respond to a question about reality -- with facts, with insight and with citation to the source for the facts.
I likes it.
Now, tell me what the US regulator could or should have done to head this off?
How could they, assuming they didn't know what they didn't know due to the company's cover up and misrepresentation or failure to disclose?
How are CDS and CDOs regulated and by whom?
In short, how do we fix this?
28 Feb 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyGlad you mentioned the rating agencies -- yep, enough blame to go around
Yep. I was going to link that same article but you beat me to it. Here's another that you may find interesting. It discusses the Gaussian copula function that was used to price CDO's, and the insane assumptions behind it.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all
As for the blame, it goes far and wide. But if I had t ...[text shortened]... would be the rating agencies. Had they done their job no A-rated CDO would have ever existed.
28 Feb 09
Originally posted by Metal Brainthe banks knew. but they had no incentive to be responsible because they knew the pro-business deregulatory philosophy of Reaganomics meant they would not be held accountable. In fact, because they retained no interest in the product they created, they also retained no liability for it having no real value in the end.
There was predatory lending going on and that was a factor. Allan Greenspan lowered interest rates too much and caused the housing bubble to grow. He would be the 2nd person I would blame after Bill Clinton.
Sure, people should have known that they could not afford the mortgage payments in the long term but it is hard to blame them for being stupid. W ...[text shortened]... nks knew that better than anybody. They just didn't care. Either that or they were stupid too.
28 Feb 09
Originally posted by ScriabinI agree.
the banks knew. but they had no incentive to be responsible because they knew the pro-business deregulatory philosophy of Reaganomics meant they would not be held accountable. In fact, because they retained no interest in the product they created, they also retained no liability for it having no real value in the end.
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
28 Feb 09
Originally posted by ScriabinHold on. Why are you blaming Reagan? I thought I established what bills caused the deregulation. Reagan had nothing to do with those. Bill Clinton was president.
the banks knew. but they had no incentive to be responsible because they knew the pro-business deregulatory philosophy of Reaganomics meant they would not be held accountable. In fact, because they retained no interest in the product they created, they also retained no liability for it having no real value in the end.