Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

... if I look at the hit that it has taken and calculate my share of what this bailout will cost, the bailout is cheaper. Assuming it works.

Start with the bottom line. America's net worth has been so distorted with excessively low interest rates, tax cuts (that are really nothing more than future tax increases because spending cuts were not also implemented), and welfare to the rich. Economic forces are now taking revenge. Net worth of America must drop maybe somewhere between 20% and 40% so that the dollar numbers are corrected. So who takes the most pain?

Whether the government does a bailout or bankruptcy threats result in same corrections; is irrelevant in the big picture. We all pay either way. Americans must now pay for this stupidity for the next ten plus years by enriching the Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, etc. Time to avoid this stuff was obvious four and more years ago when the rich increased their wealth by (I no longer know this number) 100 times more while the average man's income dropped 2%. This had only happened once previously - just before the great depression. I am only reposting an obvious fact from history.

This we do know. With every pound more pain applied to top management, only then will future managers learn from history. Washington Mutual executives will get no golden parachute (hopefully). But people such as O'Neil (of Merrill Lynch) must be hounded in the courts, the press, and on the street for being the alpha example of bad people.

We have the economy we deserve because we got the "deregulation" we wanted of those who historically are among the least responsible - the financial industry. Stock brokers, bean counters, etc making a strong economy is always the myth. Now everyone must be hurt big time. No way around it. Americans must now pay for the party hangover whether part of the party or not. Question is only about which Americans *should* suffer most. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That says where pain should be greatest.

Did you invest in the people who make America great (companies that innovate and actually produce something), or did you invest in those who made big profits by lying? America’s product oriented companies are not suffering losses as large. Why are stock broker companies and mortgage hawkers in so much trouble? They are not experts. They are only salesman who successfully lie about being smart. NINJA – these experts even issued mortgages without asking the obvious, “No Job No Income Apparent”. Those who blindly listened to finance thinkers are now suffering most – and rightly so. Learn why bean counter types (spread sheet experts) are the least responsible thinkers.

However, quietly being heard is American automakers got $25billion from the government. Bankruptcy that would have fixed auto industry problems by removing bean counters (the worst being GMs) is being averted – a bad thing.

[dar512]

My mortgage is now owned by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222...googlenews_wsj

I'm getting anxious.

[dar512]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...ry/701956.html

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by dar512

My mortgage is now owned by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222...googlenews_wsj

I'm getting anxious.

Our mortgage has been sold twice so far.

[Undertoad]

My shitty mortgage is with Chase, and Jackie works there. Company is solid. I hope to remortgage soon, if somebody will let me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by dar512

My mortgage is now owned by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Your mortgage, from your perspective, is completely irrelevant. Your mortgage is now something like a bond - traded like any equity. If Washington Mutual went down, does your mortgage disappear? Of course not. Either the government buys WaMu, or makes a special deal for other company (JP Morgan) to take over your mortgage, or it is sold to another bank, or it is bought by foreigners. Yes, then is where the real rescue is coming from. Even if the government takes over a bank, the money to do so comes (in part or whole) from Treasury Bonds sold to foreign nations.

Remember, economic forces are taking revenge. The bills are coming due. We must pay the rest of the world OR borrow more for assets that were mostly fictions. Bean counter types making money without even looking at the underlying product. That does not affect anyone's existing mortgage. Bankruptcies are so good because the assets (ie mortgages) are sold to others who will be more responsible.

[xoxoxoBruce]

From Big Shot Bob

The following items must be included in any bailout bill:

NO BLANK CHECKS for the banking industry.

PROTECT THE TAXPAYERS. Taxpayers should get ownership in a company equal to any amount paid in excess of the value of the bad debt. This will prevent profitable firms from using this bailout to get rid of their bad debt. It will insure that if the bailout works and the firms become profitable again, taxpayers - not simply bankers - benefit from the upside.

HOLD CEOs ACCOUNTABLE. Any firm that wants a bailout must agree to hold CEO's and Boards of Directors accountable - by firing them. Those held accountable should NEVER be given millions of dollars for overseeing failure.

PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. An independent watchdog should oversee the public ownership of failing companies to ensure taxpayers recoup their investment. Members of this independent oversight entity should include workers and consumers and be approved by Congressional vote.

ENACT REGULATIONS TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. Any bailout must contain stronger regulation to end the "casino culture" of Wall Street. Financial products based on speculation with no collateral of tangible assets should be prohibited.

AID THE VICTIMS, NOT JUST THE PREDATORS. Since everyone is better off when working families avoid foreclosure, bankruptcy judges should be able to adjust the terms of the mortgages for families facing foreclosure so as many people as possible can stay in their homes.

INVEST IN THE REAL ECONOMY. Any bill to bailout the big corporations should include major public investment in development of new sources of energy and energy conservation, rebuilding schools and infrastructure, extending unemployment and food stamps, and helping states avoid crippling cuts in police and health services.

PROTECT CONSUMERS. Commercial banks that accept taxpayers' money should be compelled to accept tough new restrictions on credit card and banking fees, credit card interest rates and predatory credit practices.

Makes sense to me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

requoted: " Commercial banks that accept taxpayers' money should be compelled to accept tough new restrictions on credit card and banking fees, credit card interest rates and predatory credit practices. "

Which commercial banks are accepting taxpayer money? Washington Mutual was driven into bankruptcy while WaMu executives were on a plane - unaware they had been removed. Investments banks are on the dole. But the big commercial banks - JP Morgan, Citigroup, Chase, Bank of America, Wachovia, etc - I don't believe any are taking taxpayer bailouts. But then they also had to conform to restrictions such as limited debt to equity ratios.

Hedge Funds. Are we still to see hedge funds come running for rescue? Auto loan companies might be struggling soon?

Commercial banks can be sold to foreigners who did not have financial people playing money games by purchasing deregulation and would be happy to own banks in America. After all, America that needs cash must sell assets to foreigners - government bonds, mortgage backed securities, companies, real estate - to pay for the eight year party.

Did you have a good time at the party?

Those were the days my friend.
We thought they'd never end.
... a song describing the roaring twenties. We did not have flappers. But we did have Britney Spears without underware and Paris Hilton taping sex. "This is the craziest party there would ever be ... Mama told me not to come...."

[xoxoxoBruce]

The news tonight is predicting Wachovia may be the next to topple.

[Yznhymr]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I love that email. I got it yesterday. Almost moved me to tears. Sad no one in power (or soon to be in power) have the brains, audacity, or balls to do something like this. Honestly, I'd be hesitant too. I don't trust the public to make the right choice. Hence, part of the mortgage problems we have. When >25% of homes in my neighborhood are empty because of foreclosures, I believe individuals and banks made a big mistake.

A friend of mine in an investment firm informed me most mortgages given were done because they were "forced" into it because they could not discriminate. That shaffs my ass. Whay can't a bank say no? It's a sad state of affairs when the liberals force businesses to do their bidding by threatening discrimination, then turn and blame the conservatives running the businesses who honestly do want to make a dollar for their effort. Now everyone is suffering. Thanks for nothing. Now where's my $297,500? :p

[Yznhymr]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The news tonight is predicting Wachovia may be the next to topple.

Jeez, really? That's not good. The economy is going to take both parties to work together to fix it, else we will pass recession into a depression and a possible crash.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Yznhymr

I love that email. I got it yesterday. Almost moved me to tears. Sad no one in power (or soon to be in power) have the brains, audacity, or balls to do something like this.

Read it again but this time do the math yourself.

A friend of mine in an investment firm informed me most mortgages given were done because they were "forced" into it because they could not discriminate.

I don't believe that. Either a person is qualified for a mortgage or not. I see the problem as;
1- greedy people trying to make money by turning houses in the bubble, and
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.

When we bought our house 11 years ago, our lender kept telling us (maybe 2-3 times) that with our credit, we really could borrow more money than we were asking for and that we could have more house. My wife and I both worked at the time. We were DINKs. But we knew that kids would probably be in the future and we wanted to be able to afford a house on just one income. So we politely declined the extra money on the table each time it was offered. Looking back, I realize the guy writing up the loan probably got a fee based on the size of the loan and he wanted to make the largest fee possible. He was supposedly working for us, but probably got paid more if he could talk us into a bigger loan. Stupid system.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Yznhymr

A friend of mine in an investment firm informed me most mortgages given were done because they were "forced" into it because they could not discriminate. That shaffs my ass. Whay can't a bank say no? It's a sad state of affairs when the liberals force businesses to do their bidding by threatening discrimination, then turn and blame the conservatives running the businesses who honestly do want to make a dollar for their effort.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't believe that. Either a person is qualified for a mortgage or not. I see the problem as;
1- greedy people trying to make money by turning houses in the bubble, and
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.

But isn't a lot of this the result of Bush's (not a liberal) plan to increase minority home ownership? I mean, ARM's have been around forever, why is it that suddenly no one understands them and they are predatory? What changed?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to “explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas.”

Pressed for details on “equity assurance” by RealtyTimes, Freddie Mac vice president Craig S. Nickerson said the idea is still at an embryonic stage, but might involve limited guarantees or insurance coverage to protect buyers from the possibility of loss of their initial equity stakes should property values in their neighborhoods decline.

But they didn't do that.
Yes, ARMs have been around forever, but in order to judge the risk, you have to understand how they work and what the probably of risk is, to you.

[Devil's Advocate] Well then, these people shouldn't even be considering buying a home. if they aren't smart(educated) enough to understand what they are signing. [/DA]

Yes, but this was the target audience.
The people whose job it was the hustle these sales, on commission, cajoled, and often lied through their teeth, to people that couldn't fathom anything beyond, how much down/how much a month, RFN.
I'm sure LJ sees these people all the time. People that don't fully realize what they are getting into, and slick salespeople that take advantage of that.

Off track... these are the same people that, if Social Security were removed in favor of Personal Retirement Investments, would invest in AMWAY.