Credit Crunch Villains

[Nicky_Hatton]

Question to you guys. I'm not that good understanding the economy(just got a little background info on this topic). I got money in WaMu, do you think its going to go under, and if so when?

**** waMu? ****ing hell mate withdraw it all out now, the place is reportedly filing for bankruptcy.













/ joke.

my Grandpappy has/had money in nOrthen rock.

[Iamnotausername]

Howdy, I need to go to bed cos I'm still recovering from a heavy weekend and I have a busy day at work tomorrow. I will continue this conversation tomorrow with you.

Have a good evening and night

[Spare Moody]

I never said they wouldnt take the money. Of course if a bank offers you money, no one will reject it. My point is that if they werent being offered it in the first place, they wouldnt know about it, and would be forced to be more careful with their finances. For example the sub-prime loans. With the policy of calculating what you can afford, then stretching it a bit. Then a couple of years down the line stretch it a bit more. If they just bought what they could afford, instead of having unstable carrots dangled in front of them, it would most probably have provided a cushion for the blow of a recession. This is like falling into a pool of broken glass

In britain, monetarism, is still relatively new(late 80's), before that people could only purchase property if they could prove beyond any resonable doubt that they were secure enough to pay it off. recently the banks have just been loaning money at will in full knowledge that its clients cant pay it off, then when the **** hits the fan they pick up their pound of flesh. thats how gangsters act, not how people in charge of the economy should be acting IMO.

well looking back on it, of course we've learned from our mistakes. it's easy to say insurers should have used such unstable securities, brokers shouldn't have been so greedy, and consumers shouldn't have been so careless.

but it's near impossible to have predicted it would have all come down in such a domino-like manner.


you seen this yet?
http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?d...&skipauth=true

[Spare Moody]

Question to you guys. I'm not that good understanding the economy(just got a little background info on this topic). I got money in WaMu, do you think its going to go under, and if so when?

you're only at risk for any amount over $100K in the account.

[baddest]

you're only at risk for any amount over $100K in the account.

oh damn, I knew I shouldn't have put all my drug money in there ****. j/k

thanks

[Spare Moody]

I'm gonna dispense with facts and purely go on my own opinion here.

They may be taking measures and doing the best they can, but at the end of the day they are gonna be going back to their mansion and 5 cars and living the life of a king. If there was a measure in place that would put their standard of living in danger they may make a few more sacrifices. They simply cannot empathise with the ordinary worker because they live in completely different world. My problem is that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for all this. Its not too much to ask that the investors dont get their million pound bonuese for ****ing up and actually go without until they fix it. If things go well when they deserve their rewards. They shouldnt still be rewarded when it all goes wrong.

i get yer frustration but you gotta put aside emotions and focus on reality. the majority of people in finance are NOT in as good of standing as they were before all of this.

the ones who are are in good standing for the same reasons why most financially sound people are: savings. they're taxpayers too so they'll be paying for this as well.

you can't just take a few billion $$ of rich people's assets and allocate it into a debt well over TRILLIONS of $$. that will accomplish 1 thing and 1 thing only:
you will bankrupt these people and then they will be covered by tax dollars anyways. very few people will even feel satisfied because most people will realize that taking action against these people will accomplish less than the ****ing government stimulus checks. in the end, people will be 10X more pissed that the government isn't doing anything rational to fix the problem. bottom line, you can't punish someone who didn't break the law.

[Spare Moody]

As much as the city bankers are to blame, it's the people even higher up who said the daft idea of bonuses based on mortages or whatever the scheme was. They get paid for allowing sub prime mortages, and then kind of debt factoring by bundling large amounts of sub prime mortages up and selling them to other banks. The sub prime element means they have basically no way of paying for their mortage and their house gets repoed, whilst the banks who purchased the mortages will get **** all. They will then be down millions/billions in assets which are pretty much intangible as no one will pay the credit, as they can't. It's kind of created a cash flow future crisis.

Anyway this in turn has lead to banks been much less willing to lend to each other, and thus the collapse of the mortage market, and the decline in competition for mortages. The banks can't afford to pay out a hefty amount of cash to get it back in the long term, when they need it now.

The average folk who own houses are the worst affected, as mortage rates and payements have hiked up to cover the costs of the sub prime mortages. It's ridiculous.
Not to mention getting on the property ladder in the first place.

They should just write the debts off, it's their own ****ing fault. Take a big ****iing hit, and learn a lesson. Don't **** around with the mortage market, and offer mortages to people who can't afford them. and ultimately this has only occured due to wanky bonus policies, which has lead to bankers increasingly accepting people with no fixed income/whatever.

**** knows how I'm going to get on the property ladder, hopefully this would ahve blown over by then.

1. sub prime does not mean people don't have the ability to repay. last time i checked, around 8-10% of these people were in default so obviously plenty of people are paying. sub prime means higher risk. the media blew this whole "giving loans to people who can't afford them" **** outt've proportion. there were a lot of stated loans but very few were given out to cashiers financing $500K, etc.

2. interest rates and payments have not been affected at all as a result of this. if anything, they dropped slightly because of the sub-prime collapse.

3. the average homeowner isn't affected in a bad way unless they can't afford their home. for the other majority of homeowners, they're just seeing the value stabilize. it'll eventually go back up. if anything, a lot of people in sub-prime loans are now able to get low fixed rates that they would have never qualified for.

4. there are many of other factors besides homeowner's ability to repay that have contributed towards this situation.

5. the banks ARE writing off these losses and going out of business.

6. you're saying the problem is that too many people got on the property ladder by lax qualifications yet are complaining that tightening these standards will prevent you from getting on the property ladder. yet all they're doing is going back to down payment and ability to repay rules so, if you don't have that, how are you any different than these people who you're saying shouldn't have had loans in the 1st place??

[!! Shawn]

True, but a public example would show that everyone is accountable for their actions and at least make future shady economic oppurtunist think twice before gambling people's life savings for their own pleasure. I've read a little bit in TIME about the current FDIC(or fed bank or something) head and I think he's doing as much as possible to try and save the economy and is a commendable dude, but I still think no one should be vindicated and leave with their hands dirty.

All making examples of CEO's does is make every other CEO do worse. Believe it or not, people perform better when they don't have the threat of jail looming over their head.

On another note, you are ******ed. Nobody gambled away anything. They made business transactions that were prudent at the time, but in hindsight were not a good idea.

If you want to blame anyone, blame uncle Ben Bernake. The ****er is the most incompetent piece of **** of a Federal Reserve Chairmen as there ever has been. He is asleep at the ****ing wheel.

If anyone needs to be made an example of, its him. I say public execution for the crime of Treason.

[PBDS]

Question to you guys. I'm not that good understanding the economy(just got a little background info on this topic). I got money in WaMu, do you think its going to go under, and if so when?

...The FDIC says your safe up to 250K but I would diversify those funds into a few banks if it's anything over 100K. WAMU is in serious trouble right now.

[Davros?]

Its mostly due to subprime mortgages, these loans were then packaged up and sold of to other banks, investment company’s etc etc, basically people got greedy, there was an excellent program on bbc2 a few months back that explained it all but it would take to long to write it all out lol.