Banking regulation

[Ursa Majoris]

I don't hold out much hope for banking regulation once Rep Bachus gets into the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. Apparently, according to him,

 

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks," he said.

 

Great. That worked out really well last time around.

[wiegie]

It seems that there will be a debate about the financial crisis and financial regulation here in Grand Rapids in late February. I think I will attend because some of the people on the panel seem really smart.

 

[Big John]

It seems that there will be a debate about the financial crisis and financial regulation here in Grand Rapids in late February. I think I will attend because some of the people on the panel seem really smart.

 

As long as they son't mix it up with the March 21 discussion.

[Ursa Majoris]

As long as they son't mix it up with the March 21 discussion.

Same thing. Pirates, bankers, no difference.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Great. That worked out really well last time around.

u mean the last 2 times

[Grimm74]

I don't hold out much hope for banking regulation once Rep Bachus gets into the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. Apparently, according to him,

 

 

 

Great. That worked out really well last time around.

 

How much money did those junk quasi government agencies Fannie and Freddie lose? You know the guys who made the market?

[moneymakers]

Barney Frank still in charge?

 

Man should be in jail.

[Ursa Majoris]

How much money did those junk quasi government agencies Fannie and Freddie lose? You know the guys who made the market?

Do you think regulators should serve banks?

[westvirginia]

Of course not. Grimm is just pointing out that Freddie & Fannie aren't a part of this fiasco. This is just like obamacare - nothing to actually address the real problems.

 

Do you think regulators should serve banks?

[wiegie]

How much money did those junk quasi government agencies Fannie and Freddie lose? You know the guys who made the market?

1) the CBO estimates that the budgetary impact of Fannie and Freddie will be $389 billion by 2019.

 

2) I'm not exactly sure where you are going with your second sentence, but let me state clearly that Freddie and Fannie are not the primary culprits behind the financial crisis and subsequent recession

[Ursa Majoris]

Of course not. Grimm is just pointing out that Freddie & Fannie aren't a part of this fiasco. This is just like obamacare - nothing to actually address the real problems.

F & F aren't a part of what fiasco? The thread is about Bachus's statement that regulators and Washington should serve the banks.

[millerx]

I don't hold out much hope for banking regulation once Rep Bachus gets into the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. Apparently, according to him,

 

 

 

Great. That worked out really well last time around.

take things out of context for a expedition much, do ya?

 

Bachus later clarified his remarks to the paper and said he meant that regulators should set parameters for banks, but not micromanage them.

[Grimm74]

1) the CBO estimates that the budgetary impact of Fannie and Freddie will be $389 billion by 2019.

 

2) I'm not exactly sure where you are going with your second sentence, but let me state clearly that Freddie and Fannie are not the primary culprits behind the financial crisis and subsequent recession

 

2) F&F are the market setters. That is what I am saying with that statement. At a minimum equally the US government, US Banks, and Individuals are to blame. We can sit here and debate the percentages but I will not in any length.

 

I do believe the "subject" comment in this thread is being taken out of context. I know that is very rare but....

[Ursa Majoris]

2) F&F are the market setters. That is what I am saying with that statement. At a minimum equally the US government, US Banks, and Individuals are to blame. We can sit here and debate the percentages but I will not in any length.

 

I do believe the "subject" comment in this thread is being taken out of context. I know that is very rare but....

Just out of interest, would you support the idea of mortgages not being sellable items? In other words, the lender assumes all risk because they have to keep them on their own books (the sole exception being if the lender is bought, in which case the buyer would have to keep the mortgages). I'm aware this would probably slow down the housing market but it would surely focus the attention of lenders so that unqualified people didn't get the loans (which is where this all started, grossly exacerbated by the mad game of pass-the-parcel that followed).

[muck]

Just out of interest, would you support the idea of mortgages not being sellable items? In other words, the lender assumes all risk because they have to keep them on their own books (the sole exception being if the lender is bought, in which case the buyer would have to keep the mortgages). I'm aware this would probably slow down the housing market but it would surely focus the attention of lenders so that unqualified people didn't get the loans (which is where this all started, grossly exacerbated by the mad game of pass-the-parcel that followed).

 

No I would not be a fan of it ... because there are other better alternatives ... like:

 

1) Pool mortgages just like had been done.

2) Tranche mortgages just like had been done.

3) Require lenders / originators / underwriters to keep the 'equity' of 5-50% of each pool (depending on the underwriting criteria of the pool), which had not been done.

 

...requiring the lenders / orginators / underwriters to keep the equity would function much as the same thing as requiring the lenders to keep the whole thing...but yet not slow down the world of mortgage lending nearly as much...

[redrumjuice]

1) the CBO estimates that the budgetary impact of Fannie and Freddie will be $389 billion by 2019.

 

 

October 22, 2010|By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles TimesReporting from Washington — The cost for the huge government bailouts of housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will grow — and possibly more than double to $363 billion — over the next three years.

[wiegie]

October 22, 2010|By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles TimesReporting from Washington — The cost for the huge government bailouts of housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will grow — and possibly more than double to $363 billion — over the next three years.

Did you even read that whole article? The $363 is the worst case scenario and actually, if you include dividend payments, the bailout is expected to cost significantly less than that even in the worst case scenario.

[bpwallace49]

Did you even read that whole article? The $363 is the worst case scenario and actually, if you include dividend payments, the bailout is expected to cost significantly less than that even in the worst case scenario.

 

He cant read . . . therein lies quite a bit of his "difficulties"

[redrumjuice]

The $363 is the worst case scenario

 

Do gov't estimates usually come in under budget?

 

You could argue the cash for clunkers was a success, and you'd be totally, unequivocally wrong.

 

There is so much bad paper out there, the losses are gonna dwarf what we know now.